Allowed

Rahees Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Jun 2025ABA/570/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail in a theft case where stolen jewellery was recovered from a co-accused who disclosed the applicant's name. No recovery from the applicant and no prior convictions. The court granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, subject to cooperation, trial attendance and other conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and trial attendance.

Rahees Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand — Anticipatory Bail | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:4397

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 02^nd JUNE, 2025

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.570 of 2025

Rahees Ahmad

..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others ..…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Prem Kaushal,

¶10

Advocate.

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Nos.1 & 2 Holder.

¶12

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶13

The present Application has been filed by the applicant – Rahees Ahmad for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.71 of 2025, registered at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar under Section 303(2) of the B haratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶14

2. During the investigation, Section 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been added.

¶15

3. As per the FIR dated 27.02.2025, the informant’s jewellery was stolen by unknown person on 23.02.2025.

¶16

4. Heard Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder

¶17

¶18

2025:UHC:4397

¶19

for the respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶20

5 . Mr. Prem Kaushal, Advocate, submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The stolen articles were not recovered from his possession. He has been falsely implicated by the coaccused. He is not a previously convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Rampur (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no chance of his absconding.

¶21

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally and submitted that during investigation, some jwellery of the informant was recovered from the co-accused, namely, Murtaja Ali. He disclosed the name of the present applicant. As per the statement of the co-accused, he and the present applicant had stolen the informant’s jwellery.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

2025:UHC:4397

¶26

and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant-Rahees Ahmad, 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: -

¶27

(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶28

(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

9 . It is clarified 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.

¶32

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶33

Date : 02.06.2025 Pant/

¶34

Rahees Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahees Ahmad 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

Jahid Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shaukeen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Akshay Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Saroj Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Ajay Kumar Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand