Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/185/2026 of ANAS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 27 May 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA No. 185 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant through V.C. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
ABA No. 185 of 2026
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
1. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant through V.C.
2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. The present applicant Anas S/o Mr. Fayyaz is praying for anticipatory bail in reference to First Information Report dated 16.04.2026 bearing FIR No. 0116 of 2026 P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun wherein he has been implicated for the offence punishable under section 108 of BNSS, 2023.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offences against the applicant and he was never been in relationship with the girl namely Mehwish and there is no independent reliable and corroborated evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of crime and the allegations are fully on the basis of conjectures and surmises and the ingredients, which are required for prosecuting for the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS 2023 is completely missing and there is no suicidal note.
6. On the other side, Mr. Gaurav Singh submits that there are sufficient material against the applicant which is evident from the observation as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in its order particularly in para 7 and 8.
7. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. on written instructions submits that there are electronic evidence against the applicant which connect the applicant with the commission of crime.
8. After taking into consideration and the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the view the applicant does not fall in any of the parameters as formulated by the Apex Court in the case of Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 for the purposes of granting anticipatory bail.
9. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail, accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
27.05.2026 Nahid