Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ABA/937/2025 of DANISH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010126082025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-08-2025 |
| 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 |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (anticipatory bail under BNS 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail under Section 309(4) BNS, 2023 should be granted to the applicant? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that in exercise of its discretion under Section 309(4), anticipatory bail may be granted where the applicant is prima facie falsely implicated, has a permanent residence in the jurisdiction and there is no risk of absconding. The court noted that one co-accused had already obtained bail, and imposed conditions—personal bond, sureties, cooperation with investigation, no inducement to witnesses, regular attendance and prior leave for travel abroad. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR dated 03.05.2025 under Section 309(4) BNS, 2023 at PS-SIDCUL, Haridwar: two persons on a Pulsar motorcycle snatched a mobile phone at gunpoint. One co-accused was arrested; the applicant sought anticipatory bail. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7237 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail under Section 309(4) BNS, 2023 can be granted on grounds of alleged false implication and non-flight risk.
- Grant of bail to one co-accused (Anticipatory Bail Application No. 878 of 2025) was treated as persuasive.
- Conditions imposed include a personal bond of ₹30,000, two sureties, cooperation with investigation, no inducement or threats to witnesses, regular attendance at trial and prior court permission for foreign travel.
- The order emphasises that misuse or violation of conditions will attract cancellation proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the nature of the offence—snatching by showing a country-made pistol—but observed the applicant’s plea of false implication.
- Reference was made to the earlier grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused, indicating consistency in exercise of discretionary power.
- The applicant’s permanent residence in Haridwar District was held to minimise risk of absconding.
- Without adjudicating merits, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 309(4) BNS, 2023 to secure the applicant’s presence for investigation and trial.
- Bail was made subject to enumerated conditions to balance the interests of justice and public safety.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged false implication in the snatching offence.
- One co-accused (Mushahib) had already been granted anticipatory bail.
- The applicant is a permanent resident of Haridwar and poses no flight risk.
Respondent
- Opposed bail application orally on instructions.
Factual Background
On 02.05.2025, two persons riding a Pulsar motorcycle allegedly snatched the informant’s mobile phone by showing a country-made pistol. An FIR was registered on 03.05.2025 under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station SIDCUL, Haridwar. One co-accused was arrested; the applicant applied for anticipatory bail. The High Court heard counsel for both sides and, without delving into merits, allowed anticipatory bail on specified conditions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 309(4), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: non-bailable offence of snatching by use or exhibition of deadly weapon.
- The court applied its discretionary power under this provision to grant anticipatory bail, imposing conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and attendance at trial.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7237