Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/87/2026 of NAUSHAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 8 July 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010037832026 ABA/87/2026 Naushad --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, 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
UKHC010037832026 ABA/87/2026
Naushad --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present applicants are praying for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 537 of 2024, under Sections 351(3), 352 and 110 of BNS, registered at Police Station–Patel Nagar, District–Dehradun.
4. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant on 31.08.2024 against the applicants under Sections 118(1), 351(3) and 352 of BNS, wherein, it was alleged that the applicants entered into the clinic of the complainant and injured the complainant with hospital instruments, which were lying there, due to which, the complainant suffered injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the injuries were simple in nature and no specific role has been assigned to any of the applicants. It is further submitted that now chargesheet has been filed in the matter under Sections 351(3), 352 and 110 of BNS. It is also submitted that applicants were not arrested during the investigation and have cooperated throughout, however, the applicants apprehend that upon taking cognizance of the chargesheet, they may be arrested or compelled to undergo unnecessary incarceration before their regular bail application is considered by the court concerned.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Since the investigation has already been concluded and the chargesheet has been submitted without arresting the applicants, their custodial interrogation is no longer required. If the Investigating Officer wants to interrogate the accused, he should have interrogated at the stage of investigation itself. In such circumstances, the object of arrest does not survive merely on account of filing of the chargesheet. The applicants are, therefore, required to appear before the court concerned and seek regular bail in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicants shall appear before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and move an application for regular bail. In the event, such an application is filed within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, without insisting upon their being taken into custody solely on the ground that the chargesheet has been filed.
9. Till the expiry of the aforesaid period of three weeks, or till the disposal of the regular bail application, whichever is earlier, the applicants shall not arrested in connection with the aforesaid case.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.)
08.07.2026 Ujjwal