HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 146 of 2022

Kuldeep Singh Bhullar and Another ...Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicants Kuldeep Singh Bhullar and Baljinder

Singh seek anticipatory bail, in FIR No. 033 of 2014, under

Sections 388, 195, 177 IPC, Police Station- Chorgaliya, District

Nainital.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3.

Based on the FIR, chargesheet under Sections 388,

195, 177 IPC was submitted in the court in the year 2014 and

cognizance was taken on 28.10.2014. It is the basis of Criminal

Case No. 2613 of 2014, State Vs. Kuldeep Singh Bhullar &

others, in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Haldwani, District Nainital (“the case”). It appears that the

prosecutor moved an application in the case for withdrawal from

the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal

2

Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). That application was rejected by

an order dated 04.11.2016, passed in the case. In fact, the FIR

was filed against the applicant on the ground that he had lodged

a false FIR. In the FIR, lodged by the applicants, final report was

submitted but after protest petition having been filed, it was

treated as a complaint and by the order dated 30.08.2019,

passed in Complaint Case No.341 of 2016, Baljinder Singh Vs.

State and Others, cognizance was taken against the informant of

the instant case and the others by the court of Civil Judge,

Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District-Nainital,

which order has been stayed by this Court in C482 No. 2263 of

2019, on 16.10.2019.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue

that, in fact, the report lodged by the applicant no.2 has not

been correctly investigated. The final report was defective, on

which cognizance has finally been taken by the Court and the

proceeding of that case has been stayed. It is argued that the

applicants are willing to face the trial. The case of applicant no.2

has found favour by the Court when the cognizance was taken

on the protest petition. Hence, it is argued that it is a case for

anticipatory bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would

submit that the applicants are absconders. Chargesheet in the

3

case was filed long back in the year 2014. Thereafter, the

applicants have not been apprehended and warrants have been

issued against them, which has been recorded in the order

rejecting anticipatory bail by the court below on 30.06.2022.

Hence, it is not a case fit for bail.

6.

Learned State Counsel referred to the principles of

law as laid down in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State

of Bihar and Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 955. In the case of

Prem Shankar Prasad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed about the conduct of an accused in the matters of

grant of anticipatory bail is relevant. In Para 19 & 20, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as hereunder:

“19. Despite the above observations on merits and despite the fact that

it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No. 2 -

accused is absconding and even the proceedings under sections 82-83

of Cr.PC have been initiated as far as back on 10.01.2019, the High

Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted

anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 - accused by observing that the

nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. The

specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by

learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by

the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of

initiation of proceedings under sections 82-8