| |
CDJ 2026 Utt HC 103
|
| Court : High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Case No : ABA. No. 339 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Parties : Sanjeev Kumar Versus State Of Uttarakhand |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Sartajul Hasan, Zeba Naaz, Advocates. For the Respondent: S.C. Dumka, A.G.A., Nikhil Bisht, Brief Holder. |
| Date of Judgment : 21-09-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
B.N.S - Sections 351(3), 352 and 64 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 351(3), 352 and 64 of B.N.S.
- Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Catch Words:
- Anticipatory bail
- False implication
- Medical report
- Investigation cooperation
- Witness tampering
3. Summary:
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, alleging false implication. Counsel highlighted a medical report showing healed hymen and no injuries, arguing the FIR’s timeline and findings are inconsistent. The State contended that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 support the prosecution. The Court, without deciding on merits, granted interim anticipatory bail pending arrest, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, cooperation with investigation, and a prohibition on contacting witnesses. Notice was issued to respondent No. 3 and a list will be prepared after service report.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Mr. Sartajul Hasan and Ms. Zeba Naaz, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. and Mr. Nikhil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Applicant is praying for anticipatory bail in reference to F.I.R./Case Crime No.0190 of 2026, under Sections 351(3), 352 and 64 of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. ever took place. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and fabricated. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the medical report of the victim, wherein it has been recorded that the hymen was ruptured, old and healed, and that no internal or external injury was found on the person of the victim. It is further submitted that, according to the F.I.R., the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 18.07.2026, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.07.2026 and the medical examination of the victim was also conducted on the same day. Thus, placing reliance upon the medical report, learned counsel submits that the medical findings do not corroborate the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and, therefore, the prosecution version is inherently doubtful.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has specifically supported the prosecution case and has reiterated the allegations levelled against the applicant.
5. Issue notice to respondent no. 3.
6. List after service report is received.
7. As an interim measure, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in an event of arrest during investigation, the applicant shall be released on an interim anticipatory bail subject to furnishing of personal bond with two reliable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation;
(ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever.
|
| |
