Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1316
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
YUVRAJ SINGH TOMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
ABA 717 / 2025
Anticipatory bail can be granted post chargesheet filing, emphasizing protection against potential arrest during trial.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 313, 506, 376, 420 - Anticipatory bail - Applicant seeks anticipatory bail after being chargesheeted for serious offences. The court recognizes the right to seek bail even after chargesheet filing, emphasizing the need for protection against potential arrest during trial proceedings. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
(B) Legal principles - The court acknowledges the importance of interim protection and the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation. The court's decision to grant bail is based on the applicant's previous interim protection and lack of flight risk. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is facing charges under IPC sections following a FIR, and has previously been granted interim protection from arrest, which led to his cooperation with the investigation.
Findings of Court:
The applicant is granted interim bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties till the next date of listing.
Issues: The main issue is whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail after being chargesheeted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that anticipatory bail can be granted even post chargesheet, considering the applicant's cooperation and potential risk of arrest by the trial court.
Result: The applicant is admitted for interim bail.
SL. No
Date
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
A H BA No. 717 of 2025 on’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Yuvraj Singh Tomar’ is praying for anticipatory bail in reference to a proceeding pending in the Trial Court arising out of First Information Report dated 16.05.2015 bearing FIR No. 107 of 2025, wherein, the applicant was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 506 , 376 and 420 of IPC , P.S. Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that on an application moved by the respondent/complainant a First Information Report was registered on 16.05.2025 bearing Case Crime No. 107 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 313, 506 , 376 r/w Section 511 of IPC . This FIR was challenged by the present applicant in WPCRL No. 1025 of 2025, wherein, an interim protection was granted by the Coordinate Bench on 28.01.2025 with the direction that the investigation may go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested nor any coercive measures shall be taken against him. 5. He submits that after getting interim protection from this court the applicant always cooperate with the investigation and subsequently on completion of the investigation the chargesheet was filed wherein the cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun on 05.12.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 313 , 506 and 376 IPC . He submits that the proceeding arising out of aforesaid cognizance order was challenged before this court in C482 Application No. 1573 of 2019, wherein, the Coordinate Bench on 17.09.2019 stayed the proceedings
till the next date of listing. Subsequently, the aforesaid C482 application was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench on 09.06.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the C482 application moved by the applicant challenging the entire proceedings is now dismissed, therefore, now there is an apprehension of arrest. He submits that the applicant is entitled to get the anticipatory bail even after filing of the chargesheet and in reference to this he placed reliance in one of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 SCC Online SC 299 wherein, in paragraph 10 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: importantly, the appellants apprehend “10. More arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but at the behest of the Trial Court. This is for the reason that in some parts of the country, there seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and this is why they seek protection. We must keep this in mind while deciding the fate of these appeals.” 7. Let the respondent/State may file counter affidavit within four weeks. 8. Two weeks’ time thereafter is granted to the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit. 9. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted for interim bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned till the next date of listing. 10. List this matter on 18.08.2025. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 30.06.2025 PR
