The Uttarakhand High Court answers in the affirmative, upholding established anticipatory‐bail precedents under Article 21 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and confirms its binding value on subordinate courts while remaining persuasive elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ABA/1094/2024 of SANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010174232024 |
| Date of Registration | 05-11-2024 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing anticipatory-bail jurisprudence |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when no antecedents exist, charge-sheet is filed, and custodial arrest risks are minimal |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that personal liberty under Article 21 is precious; pending trial for non-heinous offences, with no antecedents and a filed charge-sheet, anticipatory bail must be granted on reasonable conditions to prevent abuse of process. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR alleges public abuse and beating at 1:30 p.m. on 23.10.2024; applicant and informant in relationship; interim bail granted on 12.11.2024 and complied with. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7518 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the right to anticipatory bail under Article 21 must be protected unless custodial detention is imperative.
- Confirms that a filed charge-sheet and absence of criminal antecedents reduce the risk of tampering or absconding.
- Endorses attaching conditions—regular court attendance, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and permission for foreign travel—to safeguard the trial process.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Emphasised that personal liberty under Article 21 is a “very precious fundamental right” and should be curtailed only when strictly necessary.
- Noted absence of criminal antecedents and the applicant’s local residence weigh in favour of bail.
- Observed that once the charge-sheet is filed, the risk of evidence tampering or absconding is minimal.
- Held that interim bail compliance demonstrates good conduct, justifying making the order absolute.
- Imposed reasonable conditions (personal bond, sureties, attendance, non-interference with witnesses, court permission for travel) to balance liberty and fair trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicant)
- The FIR is false, motivated by family objections to his relationship.
- No criminal antecedents; permanent local resident, so no flight risk.
- Charge-sheet already filed; negligible risk of tampering.
- Interim bail granted on 12.11.2024 and conditions complied with.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed anticipatory bail (no detailed submissions recorded).
Factual Background
Sandeep Singh and the informant were in a relationship opposed by his family, leading to FIR No. 443/2024 at Bazpur PS, Udham Singh Nagar, alleging public abuse and beating on 23.10.2024 under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74 and 75(1)(i) BNS 2023. The applicant procured interim bail on 12.11.2024 and complied with its conditions before moving for anticipatory bail.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74 and 75(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: relate to public mischief, assault, and related offences.
- Article 21, Constitution of India: affirmed as the foundational guarantee underpinning anticipatory bail.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or guidelines were issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7518 (High Court of Uttarakhand)