Smt. Hema Devi And Another ..... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 1822 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Smt. Hema Devi And Another ..... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 11 March, 2026

Author: Alok Kumar Verma

Bench: Alok Kumar Verma

                                                       2026:UHC:1593


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                      11th MARCH, 2026
     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1003 OF 2025

Smt. Hema Devi and Another                        ..... Applicants
                             Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another                  .....Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants             :    Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent             :    Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,
No.1.                                       Assistant Government
                                            Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent             :    Mr. B.M. Pingal,
No.2.                                       Advocate.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

This Application has been filed for anticipatory

bail in Case Crime No.51 of 2025, registered at Police

Station Bhowali, District Nainital under Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. According to the First Information Report dated

11.08.2025, the applicant no.1 executed an agreement to

sell in favour of the informant and his wife. The applicants

received advance money, but sale-deed was not executed.

3. Heard Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the

applicants, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant

Government Advocate for the respondent no.1 and Mr. B.M.

Pingal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

4. Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, submitted that the

2026:UHC:1593 applicants were always ready and willing to perform their

part of the agreement, but the informant and his wife

denied to purchase the property. The present dispute is civil

in nature. Applicants are permanent resident of District

Nainital, therefore, there is no possibility of their

absconding. They were granted interim bail on 02.09.2025

and the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated

by them, and, the charge-sheet has already been filed,

therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the

evidence.

5. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government

Advocate, and Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, have opposed the

anticipatory bail application.

6. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and

it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative

according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case.

7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel

for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and

circumstances of the case, without commenting on the

merits of the case, the present Anticipatory Bail Application

is allowed and the order dated 02.09.2025, granting interim

bail to the applicants, are made absolute. It is directed that

in the event of arrest of the applicants Smt. Hema Devi and

Harish Lal, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on

2026:UHC:1593 executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to

the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the

following conditions:-

(i) Applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case.

(iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

8. It is made clear that if the applicants misuse or

violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the

prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for

cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date: 11.03.2026 pant/