Disposed¶5

Mohd Asif v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC13 Jul 2026ABA/745/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application (ABA/745/2025) of Mohd Asif v. State of Uttarakhand disposed of by Alok Mahra, J., High Court of Uttarakhand, 13.07.2026; F.I.R. No.171/2025, Sections 127, 143, 351(2) B.N.S. 2023, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar; charge-sheet already filed; applicant not arrested during investigation; custodial interrogation not required; regular bail to be decided expeditiously without insisting upon surrender in the first instance.

What did the court decide?

No orders on the anticipatory bail application; applicant permitted to move a regular bail application before the Court concerned, to be decided expeditiously, on merits, and without insisting upon surrender in the first instance. ¶5

Mohd Asif Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in connection with F.I.R. No.171 of 2025 (Sections 127, 143, 351(2) B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar), given that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant was not arrested during investigation.

¶2

Court's answer

Since the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation, and custodial interrogation is no longer required, no further orders are required to be passed on the present anticipatory bail application.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is at liberty to appear before the Court concerned and move an application seeking regular bail.

¶4

Key takeaways

If a regular bail application is filed, the Court concerned shall consider and decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, and without insisting upon the applicant's surrender in the first instance, in view of his non-arrest during investigation.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail — ABA/745/2025 (High Court of Uttarakhand, Alok Mahra, J., 13.07.2026): Applicant sought anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No.171 of 2025 under Sections 127, 143 and 351(2) of B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Investigation had concluded with filing of the charge-sheet; the applicant was never arrested during investigation and custodial interrogation was no longer required. Holding that consequently no further orders were required on the anticipatory bail application, the Court disposed of it, granting the applicant liberty to move a regular bail application before the Court concerned, with a direction that such application be considered and decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits, without insisting upon the applicant's surrender in the first instance in view of his non-arrest during investigation.

¶1

UKHC010100132025

¶2

2026:UHC:5714

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			ABA/745/2025
			Mohd Asif --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
			Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, A.G.A. and Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R. No.171 of 2025, under Section 127, 143 and 351(2) of B.N.S., 2023, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
			3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been made a scapegoat on account of ulterior motives. It is further submitted that the investigation has already been concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find it necessary to arrest the applicant, which itself demonstrates that custodial interrogation of the applicant was never required. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation, appeared before the Investigating Officer whenever required,

¶4

UKHC010100132025

¶5

2026:UHC:5714

¶6

and there is no allegation that he has misused the liberty extended to him during the investigation. It is also contended that all the offences alleged against the applicant are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation, and custodial interrogation is no longer required, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed on the present anticipatory bail application. The applicant shall be at liberty to appear before the Court concerned and move an application seeking regular bail. In the event such an application is filed, the Court concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, and without insisting upon the applicant’s surrender in the first instance, keeping in view the fact that the applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation.
5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 13.07.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb739339 8f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4 DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.13 16:59:14 +05'30'

Mohd Asif v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Asif 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

Adil Vs State of Uttarakhand

Masoom and Anr. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yuvraj Pant Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hardev Associates Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd Sajid Kaif and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand