Upholding Personal Liberty in Non-Heinous Offences, Binding on Subordinate Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ABA/291/2025 of RITIK Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010036962025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | When and how should a High Court grant anticipatory bail in light of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that personal liberty under Article 21 is a fundamental right that must be curtailed only when absolutely necessary. In the absence of criminal antecedents, with the applicants being permanent residents and having complied with interim bail conditions, anticipatory bail should be granted. The exercise of discretion must balance the liberty of the accused against the needs of investigation. Conditions may be imposed to ensure cooperation and attendance at trial. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Emphasis on the primacy of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
An FIR was registered under Sections 324, 351(2), 352 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that applicant No. 1 induced physical relations under a false promise of marriage, aided by the other applicants. Applicants are relatives, without prior criminal record, and have complied with interim bail. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that anticipatory bail applications must give due weight to Article 21 and the fundamental right to personal liberty.
- Confirms that absence of criminal antecedents and permanent local residence are strong factors in favor of bail.
- Verifies that compliance with interim bail conditions supports grant of anticipatory bail.
- Illustrates the scope for imposing tailored conditions—cooperation with investigation, attendance at trial, no tampering with witnesses, court permission for travel abroad.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Acknowledged the sanctity of personal liberty under Article 21, permitting curtailment only if clearly warranted.
- Noted that applicants have no prior convictions and are permanent residents, reducing flight risk.
- Observed full compliance with interim bail conditions granted on 20.03.2025.
- Exercised inherent jurisdiction to make interim bail order absolute, granting anticipatory bail.
- Imposed conditions to secure cooperation, attendance at trial, prohibition on inducement of witnesses, and restriction on foreign travel.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicants):
- No genuine relationship existed between applicant No. 1 and the informant; others are mere relatives.
- None of the applicants have criminal antecedents.
- As permanent residents of Udham Singh Nagar, they pose no flight risk.
- Interim bail granted on 20.03.2025 has been duly complied with.
Respondents:
- Opposed anticipatory bail application.
Factual Background
An FIR (No. 95/2025) was registered at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 324, 351(2), 352 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It alleged that applicant No. 1 induced the informant into a physical relationship under the pretext of marriage, with the other applicants’ assistance. Applicants belong to the same locality, have no prior records, and interim bail was granted on 20.03.2025 and honored without breach.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 324, 351(2), 352 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were invoked in the FIR.
- The Court underscored the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution as the constitutional touchstone for bail decisions.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7261
- CNR UKHC010036962025