Uttarakhand High Court
Raja vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
2025:UHC:7483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
25th AUGUST, 2025
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 968 OF 2025
Raja ..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant
Government Advocate with
Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief
Holder.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
This Application for anticipatory bail has been
filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.30 of 2023,
registered at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh
Nagar under Sections 420, 467, 468 and Section 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. A truck of the applicant which was carrying river
bed material was seized by the police on the ground that it
was overloaded. A Challani Report was filed. The said case
was decided on 19.03.2020. Applicant had moved a
complaint before the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Kumaun against Ashok Kandpal, Sub-Inspector. The said
complaint was not considered. Therefore, a Writ Petition
(WPMS No.3109 of 2019) was filed by the applicant. A
counter affidavit was filed in the said writ petition. It was
1
2025:UHC:7483
stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner (present
applicant) had submitted a forged certificate of registration.
The laden weight of the vehicle was 49000 kg., however,
the certificate of registration, submitted by the petitioner
(applicant), showed that the laden weight of the vehicle
was 55000 kg. Then, the Coordinate Bench directed the
Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar to take a
decision in the matter and in case he comes to the
conclusion that the registration certificate of the petitioner
is forged, he shall initiate appropriate proceedings against
him in accordance with law. The present FIR has been
lodged by Sub-Inspector Ashok Kandpal.
3. Heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for
the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate for the respondent.
4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, contended that
the applicant is the owner of the said truck. The
registration certificate of the said truck was not tampered
by the applicant. The original registration certificate was
taken by the police at the time of the seizure of the truck.
Applicant was not arrested during the course of
investigation. Applicant was granted interim relief in the
writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to quash the First Information Report and in the
Application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Now, charge-sheet has been filed,
2
2025:UHC:7483
therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the
evidence. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a
permanent resident of District Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh,
therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding.
5. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government
Advocate, has opposed the anticipatory bail application
orally. However, he submitted on instructions that charge-
sheet has already been filed, therefore, custodial
interrogation is not required.
6. 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.
7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel
for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for
anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event
of arrest of the applicant Raja, 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 attend the trial court regularly
and he shall not seek any unnecessary
adjournment;
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any
person, acquainted with the facts of this case;
3
2025:UHC:7483
(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country
without the previous permission of the trial
court.
8. 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.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Date: 25.08.2025
Shiv/
4