Upholding Article 21 safeguards in anticipatory bail applications where no further custodial need exists
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ABA/315/2025 of NITIN MEHRA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010041872025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR dated 10.03.2025 in Ranipur PS (Crime No.102/2025) alleges that, on 14.09.2023, the applicant offered a cold drink to the informant, who lost consciousness; he then had physical relations, promised marriage, and later denied it. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that personal liberty under Article 21 is paramount and may be protected by anticipatory bail once the charge-sheet is filed and no custodial interrogation is necessary. Given no criminal antecedents, strong local ties, and compliance with interim bail, interim bail was made absolute on specified conditions. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7260 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that once a charge-sheet is filed and custodial interrogation is unnecessary, interim bail can be made absolute as anticipatory bail.
- Reaffirms the primacy of Article 21 in bail considerations, emphasizing personal liberty.
- Illustrates that absence of criminal antecedents and strong local ties favor anticipatory bail.
- Demonstrates common conditions: regular attendance, no inducement/threats, and court permission for foreign travel.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Emphasised that personal liberty under Article 21 is a “very precious fundamental right” and restrictable only if imperative under case facts.
- Noted that charge-sheet filing removes the need for custodial interrogation, reducing risks of evidence tampering.
- Highlighted applicant’s lack of criminal history and permanent local residence as assurances against absconding.
- Observed compliance with interim bail conditions, justifying elevation to anticipatory bail.
- Imposed standard bail conditions and warned that breach would allow cancellation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicant)
- Falsely implicated by the 29-year-old informant.
- No custodial interrogation needed post–charge sheet; no risk of evidence tampering.
- No criminal antecedents; permanent resident; granted interim bail and complied with its conditions.
Respondent (State & Informant)
- Opposed anticipatory bail; serious allegations under Sections 376(2)(n), 504, 506 IPC.
- Acknowledged that charge-sheet is filed, so no further custodial interrogation required.
Factual Background
On 14.09.2023, the informant allegedly consumed a cold drink given by the applicant and became unconscious. The FIR dated 10.03.2025 at Ranipur Police Station charges Sections 376(2)(n), 504, and 506 IPC, alleging sexual relations during her unconscious state and a broken promise of marriage. The applicant sought anticipatory bail after filing representations to authorities and obtaining interim bail on 05.04.2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Discussed the inherent powers under Section 438 CrPC to grant anticipatory bail.
- Emphasised the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Affirms existing law on anticipatory bail and Article 21 protection.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7260 (High Court of Uttarakhand, Alok Kumar Verma, J., 18.08.2025)