High CourtsSingle Bench

Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 17 March 2025 · Citation: (2025) 03 UK CK 0865

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 140(3) · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1290 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

15 paragraphs · 504 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail under Section 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.550 of 2024, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar.

2.

Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Bharadwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3.

As per the First Information Report, on 16.12.2024, the applicant along with the co-accused abducted the informant’s sister.

4.

Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is the husband of the alleged victim. The marriage was solemnized between them on 05.11.2019 and the marriage was registered on 24.12.2019 (Annexure No.2 to the Anticipatory Bail Application).

5.

Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate, has further submitted that the present applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. He was granted interim bail by the Coordinate Bench on 02.01.2025, and, conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by the applicant.

6.

Objection to the anticipatory bail application has not been filed by the respondent.

7.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally.

8.

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.

9.

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 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is allowed and order dated 02.01.2025, granting interim bail to the applicant, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Sonu, 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) I f 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.

10.

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.