Allowed¶9

Anuj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Jun 2025BA1/255/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; bail application allowed; Anuj Kumar; S/o Pal Singh; Section 376(2)(l) IPC; FIR No. 0218 of 2024; FIR dated 20.05.2024; P.S. Jaspur; District Udham Singh Nagar; hostile witnesses; victim declared hostile; victim's mother declared hostile; chargesheet filed; trial commenced; in jail since 21.05.2024; custodial interrogation not required; personal bond and two sureties of like amount; merits opinion withheld; BA1 No. 255 of 2025; Rakesh Thapliyal Judge; Uttarakhand High Court; 2025:UHC:4509.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to applicant Anuj Kumar: to be released on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned; no opinion expressed by the court on the merits of the case. ¶9

Anuj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Anuj Kumar, implicated for an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC in FIR No. 0218 of 2024 (dated 20.05.2024), P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, deserves regular bail, given that the two most important material witnesses (the victim and the victim's mother) were declared hostile during trial, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 21.05.2024, the chargesheet has already been filed, the trial has commenced, and there is no need of custodial interrogation at this juncture.

¶7

Court's answer

After hearing the arguments and taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.05.2024, this court held that the applicant deserves bail.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the court allowed the bail application.

¶8

Key takeaways

The court directed that applicant 'Anuj Kumar' be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uttarakhand High Court (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.), BA1 No. 255 of 2025, decided 04.06.2025: Regular bail granted to applicant 'Anuj Kumar', S/o Shri Pal Singh, implicated under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC in FIR No. 0218 of 2024 dated 20.05.2024 of P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Basis: the two most important material witnesses — the victim and the victim's mother — had been declared hostile during trial (a fact undisputed by learned State counsel), the applicant had been languishing in jail since 21.05.2024, the chargesheet had already been filed and the trial had commenced, and there was no dispute that custodial interrogation was no longer required. Bail application allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits; release directed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶1

2025:UHC:4509

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 255 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mrs. Neelima Mishra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Anuj Kumar’ S/o Shri Pal Singh is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 20.05.2024 bearing FIR No. 0218 of 2024 P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that during trial the two most important material witnesses the victim and victim’s mother were declared hostile and they categorically stated that nothing was done by the present applicant. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.05.2024 and the chargesheet has already been filed and the trial has already been commenced, therefore, at this juncture there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 6. On the other side, learned State counsel have not disputed this fact that the two most important material witnesses the victim and victim’s mother were declared hostile by the Trial Court and furthermore there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 21.05.2024, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any

¶3

2025:UHC:4509

¶4

opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘Anuj Kumar’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 04.06.2025 PR

¶5

2025:UHC:4509

Anuj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar 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

M/S Bajrang Bali Construction Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Indra Wati Vs Mohd. Hanif

Raghav Anand Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nitin Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jay Prakash Vs State of Uttarakhand