Uttarakhand High Court
TABA/2/2026 of ANUJ RAWAT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 13 July 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010031982026 TABA/2/2026 Anuj Rawat --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. M.S. Pal, Sr. Advocate,
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
UKHC010031982026 TABA/2/2026
Anuj Rawat --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.S. Pal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sparsh Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
3. Applicant-Anuj Rawat seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0129 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Cantt, District Dehradun.
4. This is third anticipatory bail application. Earlier, two anticipatory bail applications of the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file fresh.
5. As per the contents of the FIR, the applicant was appointed on the post of Clerk in the office of Accountant General, Dehradun and he was kept in probation for two years. After his appointment, his educational certificates were sent for verification. During verification, it came to the knowledge of the Appointing Authority that the intermediate certificate of the applicant is forged one. Thereafter, disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him and thereby his services were terminated. Consequently, an FIR was also lodged in the matter.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has not produced any forged document and certificate was issued to him by the Secondary Board of Education, Tripura; that all the documents are available as an evidentiary material and there is no need of custodial interrogation.
7. Learned State Counsel has supplied the instructions before the Court, which is taken on record. On the basis of the written instructions, learned State Counsel would submit that after inquiry, it was found that the applicant had never studied in the said school and further the certificate of intermediate was never issued by the Secondary Board of Education, Tripura.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that all the documents are available as an evidentiary material and there is no need of custodial interrogation, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
11. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/court concerned. In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation.
(ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness/victim in any manner, whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court.
12. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
(Alok Mahra J.)
13.07.2026 Ujjwal