Arpit Kumar And Another …Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 2 January, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Arpit Kumar And Another …Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 2 January, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Anticipatory Bail Application No.1229 of 2024

Arpit Kumar and another                              ...Applicants

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another                  ...Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant.
            Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.

                                     And
      Anticipatory Bail Application No.1129 of 2024

Neha and another                                       ...Applicants

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another                  ...Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant.
            Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since both these anticipatory bail applications

arise from one and the same FIR, they are decided by this

common order.

2. Applicants Arpit Kumar, Amit Kumar, Neha and

Prince Gupta seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 817 of 2023,

under Sections 323, 354, 498A, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali

Haridwar.

2

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit

that it is a matrimonial discord, which has reached to this

extent. Learned counsel for the applicants would also

submit that after 13 years of friendship and 3 years of live

in relationship, marriage was done, but unfortunately,

thereafter, FIR has been lodged. It is submitted that during

investigation, applicants were not arrested. They were

served with the notice under Section 41A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that during

investigation, the applicants were not arrested and now

charge sheet has been filed.

6. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that this is a case fit for anticipatory

bail.

7. The anticipatory bail applications are allowed.

8. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants shall

be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing

a personal bond with two sureties by each one of them,

each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
3

concerned. In addition to it, the applicants shall also

comply with the following conditions:

(i) The applicants shall not approach any witness,
in any manner, whatsoever.

(ii) The applicants shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the concerned court.

(iii) The applicants shall deposit their passport with
the court concerned. The passport may only be
returned by the order of the court concerned. In
case, the applicants do not have passport, they
shall give an undertaking to that effect to the
court concerned.

(iv) The applicants shall also give an undertaking on

(i) & (ii) above.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
02.01.2025
Jitendra