Allowed

Raghav Anand v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Jun 2025BA1/926/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application by Raghav Anand under Section 308(2), 61(5) of BNS 2023 read with Section 67 of the IT Act. The court, finding no need for custodial interrogation as the charge sheet was filed and the applicant had no prior history, granted bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount.

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1/926/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Budhlakoti, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present applicant Raghav Anand, S/o Rajkumar Anand is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 23.03.2025 registered as FIR No. 122 of 2025 wherein the present applicant and one Urmila are implicated for the offences punishable under Section 308(2), 61(5) of BNS 2023 read with Section 67 of the IT Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and only with an intention to blackmail the applicant, the applicant has been implicated. He further submits that the complainant is aged lady having two sons and there is major age difference in between the complainant and the applicant of about 8 years and furthermore in this FIR the complainant also implicated her step mother. 5. Apart from this, he submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and furthermore, the applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. has not disputed this fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and he has also not disputed this fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 7. After hearing the arguments of the

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/926/2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1.
Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh
Budhlakoti,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant.
2.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3.
Present applicant Raghav Anand, S/o
Rajkumar Anand is praying for regular bail
in relation to FIR dated 23.03.2025
registered as FIR No. 122 of 2025 wherein
the present applicant and one Urmila are
implicated for the offences punishable
under Section 308(2), 61(5) of BNS 2023
read with Section 67 of the IT Act.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant is innocent and has
been falsely implicated and only with an
intention to blackmail the applicant, the
applicant has been implicated. He further
submits that the complainant is aged lady
having two sons and there is major age
difference in between the complainant and
the applicant of about 8 years and
furthermore in this FIR the complainant
also implicated her step mother.
5.
Apart from this, he submits that the
charge sheet has already been filed and,
as such, there is no need of custodial
interrogation of the present applicant and
furthermore, the applicant has no previous
criminal history.
6.
On the other side, Mr. Sandeep
Sharma, learned A.G.A. has not disputed
this fact that the charge sheet has already
been filed, as such, there is no need of
custodial interrogation of the present
applicant and he has also not disputed this
fact that the applicant has no previous
criminal history.
7.
After hearing the arguments of the

learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the applicant has no previous criminal history and the charge sheet has already been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Raghav Anand be
released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 04.06.2025 Parul

learned counsel for the parties and further
taking into consideration that the applicant
has no previous criminal history and the
charge sheet has already been filed, as
such, there is no need of custodial
interrogation of the applicant, this Court is
of the view that the applicant deserves for
bail.
8.
Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the bail
application is allowed.
9.
Let the applicant Raghav Anand be

released on bail on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties
of
the
like
amount
to
the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
04.06.2025
Parul

Raghav Anand v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghav Anand 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

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

Nitin Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anuj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jay Prakash Vs State of Uttarakhand