Krishnakant And Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 July, 2025

0
1


Uttarakhand High Court

Krishnakant And Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 July, 2025

                                                    2025:UHC:5602-DB

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL

      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
                         AND
           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
                          02nd July, 2025

        WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL No. 1255 OF 2023

Krishnakant and Another                               ...Petitioners

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                 ...Respondent


Presence:-
Mr. Amit Satyawali, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Vikas
Anand, learned amicus curiae for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)

The petition is by the under-trial that his

arrest and detention is contrary to law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar and Another and Satender Kumar Antil

Vs. C.B.I. and Another.

2. That his continued detention is per se illegal and,

in that view, he has sought for the following reliefs:-

“(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to strictly
follow and comply with the guidelines issued by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of ARNESH KUMAR V/S STATE OF
BIHAR AND ANOTHER
(2014) 8 SCC 273 and SATENDER
KUMAR ANTIL V/S CBI
. & ANR. (MA-NO. 1849/2021 in SLP.

CRL. No. 5191/2021), Any non-compliance of the
guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be
deemed to the Contempt of the Court; as ruled out by the

1
2025:UHC:5602-DB
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ARNESH KUMAR
(supra).

(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to not
register multiple duplicate FIR(s) against the petitioner no.
1 as well as other petitioner and if the respondent has
already registered any FIR(s)/duplicate cases against the
Petitioner no. 1 then all such duplicate Cases (based on
same allegation; same offence/incident/occurrence) all
concerned with same/common
victims/complainants/witnesses may withdrawn upon due
verification to prevent the abuse of process of court and to
ensure the fundamental right of the petitioner no. 1 as
enshrined under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.

(iii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to
strictly follow and comply with the guidelines issued by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL
(supra) and HUSSAIN & ANR. V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2017) 5 SCC 702 while considering the bail applications of
the petitioners and to conclude the Magisterial trials
normally as per the direction issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of HUSSAIN & ANR. (supra);
any non-compliance shall be deemed to contrary of the
guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court and as well as violative
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

(iv). Issue a writ, order or direction or any other
appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondent
no. 1 to 3 to ensure to fully comply with the guidelines
issued in above-mentioned cases and if not complied fully,
are expected to be complied with in order to prevent
incarceration of undertrials, and to uphold the inviolable
principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty as
ruled out in the case of SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL (Supra).”

3. The allegations are of cheating multiple members

of the society and, in that view, individual sufferers

have lodged separate complaints.

4. Be that as it may, the issue of clubbing of the FIRs,

etc. can be considered at a later point of time at the

time of charge-sheet by the prosecution.

5. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate

General that petitioners have been enlarged on bail in

2
2025:UHC:5602-DB
all the cases and are no longer in custody in any of the

prisons in the State.

6. In that view, the relief with regard to enlarging the

petitioners on bail does not survive.

7. Placing the submissions of the Deputy Advocate

General on record, petition stands disposed of.

_______________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.

_______________
ALOK MAHRA, J.

Dt: 02nd July, 2025
UJJWAL

3



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here