Allowed¶8

Sahnkar Sahokar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Jun 2025ABA/560/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed; Uttarakhand HC, Nainital; Alok Kumar Verma, J., 03.06.2025; ABA 560/2025; Case Crime No. 5/2022, P.S. Kausani, Bageshwar; Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC; pretext of marriage; FIR 30.05.2022; charge-sheet filed; DNA test offered by defence; Article 21 personal liberty; personal bond Rs. 30,000/- plus two sureties; conditions and cancellation clause.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in the event of arrest on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two reliable sureties of like amount, subject to conditions (i) regular attendance at trial, (ii) no inducement/threat/promise to any person acquainted with the facts, (iii) no leaving the country without trial court permission; prosecution free to seek cancellation on misuse. ¶8

Sahnkar Sahokar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant Shankar Sahokar in Case Crime No. 5 of 2022 (Police Station Kausani, District Bageshwar), prosecuted via charge-sheet under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

¶preamble

Court's answer

The anticipatory bail application is allowed: in the event of arrest, applicant Shankar Sahokar shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two reliable sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to conditions that he attend the trial court regularly, make no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not leave the country without previous permission of the trial court; misuse or violation permits the prosecution agency to seek cancellation.

¶8

Key takeaways

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very precious fundamental right and should be curtailed only when imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 560 of 2025, High Court of Uttarakhand (Nainital), decided 03.06.2025 by Alok Kumar Verma, J.: ALLOWED. The applicant, charge-sheeted under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504 and 506 IPC in Case Crime No. 5 of 2022, P.S. Kausani, Bageshwar (FIR dated 30.05.2022 alleging physical relations established under the pretext of marriage), was held entitled to anticipatory bail. Counsel for the applicant urged false implication, his readiness for a DNA test, a ten-year gap between the alleged relationship (2012) and the FIR (2022), absence of criminal antecedents and of any arrest during investigation, and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed; the Additional Advocate General opposed orally. Directing release in the event of arrest on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of like amount, the Court imposed conditions of regular trial attendance, non-tampering with witnesses and no exit from India without trial-court permission, reserving liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on misuse. The Court observed that personal liberty under Article 21 is a very precious fundamental right, to be curtailed only when imperative on the peculiar facts of the case.

¶1

2025:UHC:4426

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 3^rd JUNE, 2025

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 560 of 2025

¶5

Shankar Sahokar … Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand … Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder.

¶6

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶7

This Application has been filed by the applicant Shankar Sahokar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 5 of 2022 (Criminal Case No. 117 of 2022), registered at Police Station Kausani, District Bageshwar.

¶8

2 . According to the First Information Report dated 30.05.2022, the applicant under the pretext of marriage established physical relations with the informant on multiple occasions at various places.

¶9

3. The charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶10

4. Heard Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

2025:UHC:4426

¶13

5. Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He never made physical relation with the informant. He is ready for his DNA test. He is working in Club/Hotel and mostly works outside the territory of Uttarakhand, therefore, there was no occasion to meet with the informant. As per the First Information Report, the informant and the applicant were in a relationship from the year, 2012 and the First Information Report was lodged in the year, 2022, which creates a doubt about the prosecution story. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He was never arrested during the investigation. Chargesheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Bageshwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding.

¶14

6. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally. 7. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

8 . Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts

¶16

¶17

2025:UHC:4426

¶18

and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. I t is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Shankar Sahokar, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

¶20

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

¶21

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

¶22

9. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶23

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶24

Dt: 03.06.2025 Shiv/

¶25

Sahnkar Sahokar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahnkar Sahokar 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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Saroj Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rahees Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hitesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Trivendra Singh Pokhriyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand