Abdul Samad Vs State of Uttarakhand

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1238 of 2024

¶3

Abdul Samad and another

¶4

...Applicants

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent Present:-

¶7

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the informant.

¶8

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1256 of 2024

¶9

Meharban and another ...Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent

¶12

Present:-

¶13

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the informant.

¶14

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶15

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

¶16

Applicants Abdul Samad, Furkan, Meharban and Dilshad seek anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 1108 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354, 336, 427 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. In fact, on 18.12.2024, this Court had granted ad interim anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

2

¶19

According to the prosecution case, 24.09.2022, at 10:30 in the night, when the informant Irfan Ahmad was in his home, the applicants and others entered in his home armed with sharp edged weapons, Lathis and Dandas and attacked various persons in the family, due to which, many persons got injured.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the main role of assault causing injuries is not assigned to the applicants; they are entitled to anticipatory bail. It is argued that in this matter the charge sheet has already been submitted.

¶21

Learned counsel for the informant submits that post grant of ad interim anticipatory bail, the applicants assaulted the informant and other family members on 20.03.2025, of which an FIR No. 280 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was lodged against them at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar and CCTV footages were also recovered, which reveal that the applicants were running from the place of incident holding Lathis and Dandas.

¶22

Learned State Counsel submits that in FIR No. 280 of 2025, which was subsequently lodged by the informant, the police has submitted the final report. At it, the learned counsel for the informant submits that the Investigating Officer has not fairly conducted the investigation in FIR No. 280 of 2025; on the one hand, he records the presence of one Ahsan at the place of incident, whereas in the cross FIR of the same incident, Ahsan writes that he was in the court when the incident took place. He submits that the informant and one more witness have totally supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel

¶23

3

¶24

for the informant also submits that the informant would file a protest petition in the final report that has been filed in FIR No. 280 of 2025. He submits that the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not correct.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the subsequent FIR No. 280 of 2025 lodged by the informant, the Investigating Officer has already filed the final report; any observation at this stage may have impact on protest petition and further proceedings of that case and the independent witnesses, namely, Muzammil, Muzaffar Ali, Afsan Ali, Noor Hasan, Taukir and Hasan Ali have not supported the prosecution case in the subsequent FIR.

¶26

It is a stage of considering an anticipatory bail application. Impact of FIR No. 280 of 2025, at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar is also being assessed. Admittedly, in that FIR, the Investigating Officer has submitted the final report, in which the informant proposes to file a protest petition.

¶27

This Court makes it clear, at this stage, that whatever discussion is being made in this order is only for the purpose of considering the anticipatory bail applications of the applicants. It shall have no impact on the protest petition or further hearing of the protest petition that may be filed by the informant on the final report, which has been filed by the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 280 of 2025, at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar.

¶28

During the course of hearing of these anticipatory bail applications, the informant had filed the CCTV footages of some persons, who were running from the place of incident holding Lathis

¶29

4

¶30

and Dandas in their hand. The Court had required the State to file an affidavit revealing as to who are visible in those CCTV footages.

¶31

On behalf of the State, on 10.09.2025, a short counter affidavit has been filed by Veer Pal Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Manglaur. He records that one of the applicants Furkan can be seen in the CCTV footages. Along with this short counter affidavit, in Annexure-SCA-1, those CCTV footages have also been filed and the person named Furkan has been marked in it. Though, the Investigating Officer of FIR No. 280 of 2025 records that the police did not find any case against the applicants or any of them.

¶32

What is interesting to note is that with regard to an incident of 20.03.2025 itself, one Ahsan has lodged FIR No. 305 of 2025 at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar against the informant and others and the Investigating Officer in his another short counter affidavit dated 16.10.2025, Annexure SCA-1, makes mention of Ahsan, who, according to this report, had an altercation with the informant on the date of incident.

¶33

In FIR No. 280 of 2025, the informant and one Muzaffar Ali have supported the case of the informant. Witness Muzammil has not seen the incident, but he said that some altercation had taken place between the parties.

¶34

Post grant of ad interim anticipatory bail to the applicants, a further FIR No. 280 of 2025 at Police Station Kotwali Manglaur has been lodged by the informant against the applicants.

¶35

5

¶36

Admittedly, in that FIR, final report has been submitted and the informant proposes to file its objection in terms of protest petition.

¶37

It is not that the only the informant has filed FIR with regard to incident of 20.03.2025. But, Ahsan has also filed an FIR with regard to the incident dated 20.03.2025. This Ahsan is named in the police report with regard to the incident dated 20.03.2025. There are CCTV footages, in which the applicant Furkan can be seen running with Lathi, though the Investigating Officer records that after hearing the commotion, he was running at the place of incident.

¶38

For the purposes of considering the anticipatory bail application, this Court is of the view that the applicant Furkan does not deserve anticipatory bail and the anticipatory bail application qua the applicant Furkan is liable to be rejected. However, the other applicants, namely, Abdul Samad, Meharban and Dilshad, who are not visible in the CCTV footages definitely deserve anticipatory bail and their bail applications deserve to be allowed.

¶39

Accordingly, ABA No. 1238 of 2024 is allowed qua the applicant Abdul Samad. ABA No. 1238 of 2024 is rejected qua the applicant Furkan.

¶40

ABA No. 1256 of 2024 is also allowed.

¶41

In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants Abdul Samad, Meharban and Dilshad shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. In addition to it, the

¶42

6

¶43

applicant Abdul Samad, Meharban and Dilshad shall also comply with the following conditions:-

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(iv) The applicants Abdul Samad, Meharban and Dilshad shall also give an undertaking on (i) & (ii) above.

¶48

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 27.11.2025

¶49

Avneet/

Abdul Samad v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Samad v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Vs Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority

Shadma Siddiqui Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sunila Mistri Alias Sunita Mistri Vs Shankar Mistri

Vipin Kumar Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Shubham Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Alias Pappu Vs State of Uttarakhand