Uttarakhand High Court

WPCRL/1193/2026 of SAMEER Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 2 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1193/2026 Sameer --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPCRL/1193/2026

Sameer --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. By means of the present criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 97 of 2026 dated 23.05.2026, registered under Sections 109, 115(2) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Dehradun, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 & 2 not to arrest or otherwise harass the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant alleging that four accused persons, including the present petitioner, assaulted the complainant's brother and caused injuries, including an injury on his head.

5. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; that, the allegations made in the F.I.R. are omnibus in nature and no specific overt act or distinct role has been attributed to the petitioner in causing the alleged injuries, therefore, the impugned F.I.R., insofar as it relates to the petitioner, deserves to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the writ petition and submit that the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R. prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner; that, the petitioner has been rightly named as an accused and that the investigation is at a nascent stage. Learned State Counsel would further contend that the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that no case is made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, he is willing to surrender before the court concerned and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. It is, therefore, prayed that limited protection may be granted to enable the petitioner to surrender before the competent court.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. at this stage. However, having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is directed that, in the event the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and moves an appropriate application for bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court concerned, strictly in accordance with law. Till the expiry of the aforesaid period of two weeks, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the impugned F.I.R.

9. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to surrender before the court concerned within the aforesaid period, the protection granted by this order, if any, shall automatically stand vacated without any further reference to this Court.

10. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

02.07.2026 Mamta

MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf4 6f244f3e584af1449e430ef9 00bf09a6d67ebbd6426713 29b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f 1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca 8b66dd26690a191648ab5d 8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.03 11:45:15 +05'30'

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead