Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/603/2025 of SHAKIL AHMAD ALIAS SHAKIL AMROHI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 6 July 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/603/2025 Shakil Ahmad Alias Shakil Amrohi --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.C.S.
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
ABA/603/2025
Shakil Ahmad Alias Shakil Amrohi --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. By means of the present application, the applicant, Shakil Ahmad @ Shakil Amorhi, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No. 0234 of 2025, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, as per the First Information Report dated 21.05.2025, the allegation against the applicant is that, on the false promise of marriage, he established physical relations with the informant. He would further submit that the applicant and the informant were in a consensual relationship for a considerable period; that, the applicant is a married man aged about 55 years and has two children, whereas the informant is a divorced lady aged above 50 years; that, the allegations, even if taken at their face value, arise out of a consensual relationship and do not constitute the alleged offences.
5. Learned State counsel, while opposing the anticipatory bail application, would submit that the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., has consistently supported the prosecution case and reiterated the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence by the applicant and that the prosecution has falsely implicated him; that, the First Information Report came to be lodged on 21.05.2025 in respect of an alleged relationship across nearly two years, and the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the report creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution story; that, the allegations are essentially civil in nature, arising out of a failed relationship, and have been given a criminal colour.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 06.06.2025, granted interim protection from arrest to the applicant; that, pursuant thereto, the applicant has cooperated with the investigation; that, the investigation has since been concluded and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent court; that, no material has been brought on record by the Investigating Officer to indicate that custodial interrogation of the applicant is either necessary or warranted. He, therefore, prayed that the interim protection granted to the applicant be confirmed and made absolute.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, and considering the nature of the allegations, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the fact that the applicant has remained protected pursuant to the interim order dated 06.06.2025, has cooperated with the investigation, the investigation stands concluded and the charge-sheet has already been submitted, and there being no material to indicate that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is now required, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for confirming the interim protection granted earlier.
9. Consequently, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 06.06.2025 is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions contained in the said order and any other conditions that may be imposed by the trial court in accordance with law.
10. The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, disposed of.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 06-07-2026 mamta
MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f24 4f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a 6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9 cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef 0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.07 10:45:02 +05'30'