[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Dalwindar Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 January, 2026
2026:UHC:659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Anticipatory Bail Application No.42 of 2026
Dalwindar Sharma ...... Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present:
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant through V.C.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned
Brief Holder for the State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: 29.01.2026
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
This is anticipatory bail application moved by the
applicant in Case Crime/FIR No.0739 of 2025, relating to
offences punishable under section 351(3), 69, 79 of B.N.S.
registered at P.S. Kotwali, Haridwar, District Haridwar.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that,
as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the applicant is
alleged to have established physical relations with the
complainant against her will on the pretext of marriage,
whereas the correct facts are that the applicant had a
genuine intention to marry the complainant and pursuant
to which, on his request, a roka ceremony was performed,
however, the said relationship subsequently broke down
due to certain disputes that arose between them. It is,
thus, submitted that there was no deceit,
misrepresentation, or false promise of marriage at the
inception of the relationship.
3. Learned counsel would further submit that even
as on date, the applicant is ready and willing to marry the
complainant; however, it is the complainant who has
declined to proceed with the marriage. It is further
submitted that a plain reading of the FIR does not disclose
the commission of any offence under Section 69 of the
B.N.S. while the allegations made under Sections 351(3)
and 79 of the B.N.S. are vague and lack material
particulars.
4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the
present anticipatory bail application; however, he fairly
concedes that as per the records of the case a roka
ceremony was held.
5. Considering the entire conspectus of things and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court is of the view that the applicants have made out
a case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, anticipatory bail
application is allowed. It is directed that, in the eventuality
of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with
two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the Investigating Officer ("IO"). In addition to it, the
applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate in the
investigation.
(ii) The applicant shall not approach any
witness/victim in any manner, whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without
prior permission of the concerned court.
(iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the
Investigating Officer ("IO"). The passport may
only be returned by the order of the court
concerned. In case the applicant does not have
passport, he shall give an undertaking to that
effect to the IO.
(v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on
above-stated condition no.(i), (ii) & (iii).
(vi) It is made clear that, in case, applicant misuses
or violates any of the conditions imposed upon
them, the prosecuting agency will be free to
move the Court for cancellation of the
Anticipatory Bail.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
Vacation Judge
29.01.2026
Rajni
RAJINI
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3
701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342,
GUSAIN
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4F
C80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A
878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2026.01.29 15:40:43 +05'30'
