Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/717/2025 on 30 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
ABA No. 717 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. The present applicant ‘Yuvraj Singh Tomar’ is
praying for anticipatory bail in reference to a
proceeding pending in the Trial Court arising out of
First Information Report dated 16.05.2015 bearing FIR
No. 107 of 2025, wherein, the applicant was
chargesheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 313, 506, 376 and 420 of IPC, P.S. Vikasnagar,
District Dehradun.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
applicant that on an application moved by the
respondent/complainant a First Information Report
was registered on 16.05.2025 bearing Case Crime No.
107 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections
417, 313, 506, 376 r/w Section 511 of IPC. This FIR was
challenged by the present applicant in WPCRL No.
1025 of 2025, wherein, an interim protection was
granted by the Coordinate Bench on 28.01.2025 with
the direction that the investigation may go on but the
petitioner shall not be arrested nor any coercive
measures shall be taken against him.
5. He submits that after getting interim protection
from this court the applicant always cooperate with the
investigation and subsequently on completion of the
investigation the chargesheet was filed wherein the
cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun on 05.12.2016 for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 313, 506 and 376 IPC.
He submits that the proceeding arising out of aforesaid
cognizance order was challenged before this court in
C482 Application No. 1573 of 2019, wherein, the
Coordinate Bench on 17.09.2019 stayed the proceedings
till the next date of listing. Subsequently, the aforesaid
C482 application was dismissed by the Coordinate
Bench on 09.06.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
since the C482 application moved by the applicant
challenging the entire proceedings is now dismissed,
therefore, now there is an apprehension of arrest. He
submits that the applicant is entitled to get the
anticipatory bail even after filing of the chargesheet
and in reference to this he placed reliance in one of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
2023 SCC Online SC 299 wherein, in paragraph 10 the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
“10. More importantly, the appellants apprehend
arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but at the behest of
the Trial Court. This is for the reason that in some
parts of the country, there seems to be a practice
followed by Courts to remand the accused to
custody, the moment they appear in response to the
summoning order. The correctness of such a practice
has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for
the present to note that it is not the CBI which is
seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend
that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial
Court and this is why they seek protection. We must
keep this in mind while deciding the fate of these
appeals.”
7. Let the respondent/State may file counter
affidavit within four weeks.
8. Two weeks’ time thereafter is granted to the
applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.
9. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted for
interim bail on furnishing his personal bond and two
sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned till the
next date of listing.
10. List this matter on 18.08.2025.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
30.06.2025
PR