logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Utt HC 103 My Notes print Preview print print
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 -
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.

 
  CDJLawJournal