Allowed

Satendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC28 Nov 2023ABA/286/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed two anticipatory bail applications filed by various applicants in relation to FIR Cr. No. 311 of 2023 involving cognizable offences. The Court granted bail subject to standard conditions including a personal and surety bond, prohibition on approaching witnesses, cooperation with investigation, and depositing passports.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all applicants, enlarged on arrest on personal and surety bond, with conditions including non-interaction with witnesses and surrender of passports.

Satendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Anticipatory Bail | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 286 of 2023

¶3

Satendra Kumar and others ….....Applicants

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Along with Anticipatory Bail Application No. 292 of 2023

¶9

Vivek alias Makhan Singh and others ….....Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶12

Present:Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶14

Since both these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are being decided by this common order.

¶15

Applicants Satendra Kumar, Shubham Saini, Harichandra, Julfkar, Mohit Chaudhary, Satish Kumar, Vivek alias Makhan Singh, Deepu, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, Mohan Singh and Sumit have sought anticipatory bail in

¶16

¶17

FIR/Case Crime No.311 of 2023, dated 09.04.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 331, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. They have sought their release on anticipatory bail.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

According to the FIR, there was a dispute with regard to the property, in which, a stay order has already been passed by this Court. Despite that the applicants are trying to grab the property. When the applicants were requested not to do so, the FIR records that the applicants and the co-accused threatened the informant and others and assaulted them.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are not parties in any petition in the High Court. He would submit that the property belongs to Smt. Bhagwati Devi; she had purchased the property from the brother of the informant.

¶21

State has filed its objections.

¶22

¶23

Learned State counsel would submit that the applicants are named by the eye-witnesses.

¶24

Having considered, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail applications deserve to be allowed.

¶25

The anticipatory bail applications are allowed.

¶26

In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. In addition to it, the applicants shall also comply with the following conditions.

¶27

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

¶28

(ii) They shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶29

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

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall deposit their passports with the Investigating Officer (“IO”). The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case, if any of the applicants

¶31

¶32

does not have passport, he/she shall give an undertaking to that effect to the court.

¶33

(v) The applicants shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above.

¶34

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.11.2023

¶35

Sanjay

Satendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ashu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd. Nadeem Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd Shivaj Vs State of Uttarakhand Thorugh Secretary Home, Government of U.K. Civil Secretariat Dehradun

Fareed Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anil Kumar and Others Vs Arvind Kumar and Another

Vivek Alias Makhan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand