Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/236/2026 of RAHUL KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 16 July 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010106692026 ABA/236/2026 Rahul Kumar --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned
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
UKHC010106692026 ABA/236/2026
Rahul Kumar --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. By means of the present application, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 30 of 2026 dated 15.05.2026 registered at Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat, for the offences punishable under Sections 2 & 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
4. Learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the anticipatory bail application and would argue that an equally efficacious remedy is available to the applicant/accused to file the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court but without exhausting the same, the applicant/accused has straightaway approached this Court. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Rafal & Another v. State of Kerala & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884, wherein it has been held that, except in exceptional circumstances, a person seeking anticipatory bail should first approach the Court of Sessions and the jurisdiction of the High Court should ordinarily be invoked only after seeking relief from the Court of Sessions.
5. To this, learned counsel for the applicant sought permission to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application with liberty to avail the appropriate statutory remedy before the competent Court of Sessions.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the applicant to approach the competent Court of Sessions by filing an appropriate application for anticipatory bail, if so advised.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and any application so filed shall be considered independently in accordance with law.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 16-07-2026 mamta
MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.20 12:21:00 +05'30'