High CourtsSingle Bench

Arun Tyagi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 11 August 2025 · Citation: (2025) 08 UK CK 0573

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — Section 305(a), 318(4), 324(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2) · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 42 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 447 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.1105 of 2024, registered at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar under Sections 305(a), 318(4), 324(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

As per the First Information Report dated 18.12.2024, the applicant was the owner of the property-in-question. He had agreed to sell six bigha land to the informant, out of which four bigha land was transferred to the informant, but the sale-deed of remaining two bigha land was not executed. The FIR records that two bigha land had already been transferred in the name of the co-accused Smt. Babli, the wife of the present applicant.

3.

Heard Mr. Umesh Arora, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent.

4.

Mr. Deepak Petshali, Advocate, submitted that the entire consideration was not been paid by the informant to the applicant. The disputes between the parties are civil in nature. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He was granted interim bail on 10.02.2025, and, the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by him.

5.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

6.

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 Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed and order dated 10.02.2025, granting interim bail to the applicant, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Arun Tyagi, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(iii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

(iv) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

7.

It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.