Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/88/2026 of MANJOOR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 21 July 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010038812026 ABA/88/2026 Manjoor and Others --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vinod Kumar
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010038812026 ABA/88/2026
Manjoor and Others --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Jemini, Advocate for the applicants.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. for the State.
3. By means of the present application, the applicants seek anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 154 of 2015, registered at Police Station Gangnahar, District Roorkee, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 341, 353/34, 427 of IPC and 7 Criminal Law and Amendment Act and Section 2 National Flag Defamation Prevention Act, 1971.
4. In this case, an FIR was lodged against unknown person. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 341, 353/34, 427 of IPC and 7 Criminal Law and Amendment Act and Section 2 National Flag Defamation Prevention Act, 1971.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case; that no specific role has been assigned to him; that there are ten co-accused persons in the chargesheet, out of which, seven co-accused persons have been granted bail. It is also submitted that since chargesheet has been filed, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. On this ground, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that if applicant surrenders before the Trial Court concerned, he may be given liberty to avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law by moving an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate concerned.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Having considered the submissions under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thinks it appropriate and directs that if the applicant surrenders before the Trial Court concerned and files his bail application, the Trial Court concerned shall consider and decide his bail application sympathetically and in an expeditious manner, as per law.
8. With the above observation, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.)
21.07.2026 Ujjwal