[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Saddam Hussain vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 March, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:11671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
18stMarch 2026
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1032 of 2025
Saddam Hussain ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned
counsel .
Counsel for the State: Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned
Brief Holder.
Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned
counsel for complainant.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
In the instant anticipatory bail application, the
applicant Saddam Hussain S/o Shakira Hussain is
praying for anticipatory bail, on an apprehension that the
respondent/complainant is compelling the applicant to
marry with her and the police is calling the present
applicant. Statement as given in para 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the
anticipatory bail application are being reproduced herein
asunder:-
"4. That present applicant and the complainant
fell in love and had physical relationship with
their free will.
5. That as present applicant has 05 sisters,
therefore present applicant wanted his sisters
to get married first and then he will get
married.
2025:UHC:11671
6. That 04 sisters have married and 01 sister is
still remaining to get married and present
applicant has told the complainant that he will
marry after his sister.
7. That the complainant has made a very big
issue of marriage and is forcing applicant to
get married to her and this has annoyed the
family members of the applicant and now the
family members are against the marriage of the
applicant with complainant."
2. Earlier the Coordinate Bench granted interim
protection to the applicant on 19.09.2025 by granting
interim bail subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case.
(ii) Applicant shall not leave the country without
the previous permission of this Court.
3. Thereafter, the objection was filed by the
respondent/complainant by giving reference of written
complaint dated 21.10.2025 addressed to the police
incharge of police station Jaspur. The counter affidavit
has also been filed by the Investigating Agency by
enclosing the statement of the victim and other
witnesses.
4. The learned Counsel for the complainant on
2025:UHC:11671
the previous date placed before this Court certain
photographs regarding the marriage of the present
applicant with another lady. In addition to this, certain
WhatsApp messages have also been placed before this
Court. Learned counsel for the complainant also pointed
out that after obtaining the interim protection by the
Coordinate Bench, on 24.10.2025 the applicant married
with another lady.
5. Today, the applicant and the complainant are
present in court.
6. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that though in para-6, specific
averment has been given that after marriage of one sister,
he will marry with the complainant but the complainant
made a very big issue of marriage and is forcing the
applicant to get married, due to which his family
members annoyed and settled the marriage of the
applicant with another lady.
7. In the anticipatory bail application, the FIR was not
annexed but in the counter affidavit filed by the State,
FIR has been placed before this Court by the
Investigating Officer which is annexed as CA-4. There are
the allegations with regard to the threatening to the
victim and to make their video viral in social platform.
2025:UHC:11671
8. Mr. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the
State, on instructions, apprised to this Court that after
thorough investigation and collecting credible evidence
now the charge sheet has been filed.
9. Admittedly, in para-6 the applicant clearly stated
that after the marriage of his sister he will marry with the
complainant, though in para-7, he further stated that
subsequent thereto the family members of the applicant
were annoyed with the victim and their family members
and are now against their marriage. It appears from the
statement as given in para-7 that it is nothing but an
afterthought.
10. Apart from this admittedly the interim protection
was granted by the Coordinate Bench on 19.09.2025 and
only thereafter the applicant married with another lady
on 24.10.2025. This aspect further clearly reveals that a
misleading statement has been given in para -7
particularly when in para-6 he undertakes that he will
marry with the complainant.
11. Now be that as it may, the investigation has already
been completed and the Investigating Agency after
collecting all material have filed the charge sheet
meaning thereby there are sufficient material to
constitute the cognizable offence.
2025:UHC:11671
12. Apart from this, this Court is of the view, that by
giving a misleading statement firstly the petitioner
procure interim protection and thereafter married with
another lady, and as such it is clear that the petitioner
has not approached with clear hands. Apart from this the
applicant misused the interim bail granted by the
Coordinate Bench since immediately thereafter he
married with another lady despite the fact that in para-6
he in fact assure to the complaint that he will marry with
her.
13. Thus, in view of the observation as above, this Court
is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The
interim protection granted by the Coordinate Bench on
19.09.2025 is also vacated forthwith.
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Nahid
