The High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by two applicants accused of religious offence under BNS. The court held that after the filing of a chargesheet upon investigation completion, there is no scope for anticipation, and the applicants were not entitled to bail.
Instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:UHC:4579
| SL. No. |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA No. 67 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in relation to a First Information Report dated 12.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0609 of 2024 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, one Santosh Kumar and other one Aman Chaudhary @ Aman Quereshi were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319 of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3/5 of Uttarakhand freedom of Religion Act, 2018 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the son of the applicant married with the sister of the complainant and it was an arrange marriage and before marriage two months back ring ceremony was also solemnized and during this period no objection was raised that the son of the applicant belongs to a different religion and this fact was very well known to the complainant and the victim and that is the reason the marriage was an arranged marriage. He further submits that soon after marriage applicant no. 2 gives an affidavit dated 11.12.2024, wherein, he stated that they belongs to a Muslim community and undertakes that no physical and mental harm will be caused to the daughter-in-law Smt. Menka Kohli the victim and further undertakes that they will not force the daughter- in-law in any manner either physically or mentally to convert her to other religion and she will be free to follow hindu religion with full freedom and will not interfere in her religious faith. 5. He submits that the present applicant always cooperate with the investigation and takinginto consideration such cooperation the |
|---|
2025:UHC:4579
Coordinate Bench on 10.02.2025 granted interim protection and as such the interim protection granted by the Coordinate Bench be made absolute. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that both the applicants are aged persons and senior citizens and applicant no. 2 is heart patient, therefore, keeping in view of their age the applicants be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. On the other side, the State counsel filed their objections and submits that after collecting all credible evidences and thorough investigation the chargesheet has been filed. He submits that the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu custom and rites, but in fact the applicant no. 2, who is the husband of applicant no. 1 belongs to the Muslim community, which itself is evident from the affidavit of the applicant no. 2 and that is his admission that he belongs to Muslim community and therefore, solemnizing the marriage as per the hindu custom and rites itself reveals that this fact was not disclosed to the family of the victim that they belongs to the different religion. 7. Apart from this, he submits that this is the anticipatory bail application and when the interim protection was granted by the Coordinate Bench the investigation was going on, but now after completion of the investigation and after collecting all credible evidences the chargesheet has been filed and as such there is no any scope of any such anticipation since the investigation comes to its logical conclusion, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 8. On the other side, Mr. Nandan Arya submits that earlier the bail of the victim’s husband was rejected by this court on 28.02.2025, which was assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court granted regular bail to Aman Siddiqui @ Aman Chaudhary, the husband of the victim. 9. Admittedly, in this case the applicants are praying for anticipatory bail. Now, the question is whether after submission of the chargesheet on completion of the investigation still there is any
2025:UHC:4579
anticipation; this court is of the firm opinion as and when on completion of the investigation the chargesheet has been filed there is no question of any such anticipation and after submission of the chargesheet the Trial Court will proceed strictly as per the procedure as laid down in the Cr.P.C. as well as under the provision of BNSS, 2023. 10. Apart from this, after filing of charge sheet the Trial Court take its motion as per law and furthermore the applicants are not remediless and there are other remedies under the law which they can avail. 11. Thus, at this juncture when on completion of the investigation the chargesheet has been filed after collecting credible evidences this court is of the view that the applicants does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 12. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.06.2025 PR
2025:UHC:4579
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted after the filing of a chargesheet upon completion of investigation.
Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in relation to offences under Sections 318(4) and 319 of BNS.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2025:UHC:4579Referred¶9
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Applicants
Santosh Kumar
Aman Chaudhary
State
Rakesh Thapliyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
