High CourtsSingle Bench

Dinesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 6 May 2025 · Citation: (2025) 05 UK CK 0685

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 420, 504, 506 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 930 Of 2024
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

13 paragraphs · 445 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.340 of 2024, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar.

2.

Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel (through video conferencing) for applicants and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for State.

3.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A., on instructions, submitted that a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants under Sections 420, 504, 506 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4.

Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate, submitted that the allegations against the present applicants are that the co-accused Aakash and the applicants took money from the informant. The money was not returned. When money was demanded, the applicants threatened.

5.

Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate, submitted that the said allegations are false. Applicants have not received any money from the informant. Applicants are not convicted persons. They are permanent residents of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of their absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence and applicants were granted interim bail on 27.09.2024, and, the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by them.

6.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A., appearing for the State, on instructions, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.

7.

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.

8.

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. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Dinesh Kumar, Smt. Pammi, Naveen Kumar and Smt. Anchal, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on 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.

9.

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.