Chandra Shekhar v. State of Uttarakhand Another

vide order dated 29.09.2023 passed by this Court in Third Anticipatory Bail Application No. 02 of 2022, in connection with FIR No. 395 of 2019, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, registered under Sections 307, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The Applicant is the injured victim in the said FIR. It is alleged that on 02.10.2019, two unknown assailants fired gunshots at the Applicant while he was present on his agricultural land. The FIR was lodged by the Applicant’s son. Subsequently, during the investigation, 1 Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application No. 1 of 2025, Chandra Shekhar vs State of Uttarakhand& Another Ashish Naithani J. Respondent No. 2 was named as the mastermind behind the attack, allegedly motivated by a land dispute.

3. As per the charge sheets dated 13.01.2020 and 29.08.2020, the Respondent No. 2 was arrayed as an accused, alongside co-accused Adnan Marghoob, Kamran Ahmad, and Irshad Ali. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 conspired with Adnan and others, who in turn hired the two assailants. Recovery of arms and the motorcycle used in the offence was allegedly effected at the instance of co-accused Adnan. Call Detail Records (CDRs), CCTV footage, and other circumstantial material were also collected during the investigation.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that Respondent No. 2 absconded during the investigation and failed to cooperate with the trial court proceedings, resulting in the initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 misused the liberty granted to him by this Court, employed dilatory tactics, and persistently obstructed the trial by filing frivolous applications.

5. It is pointed out that Respondent No. 2 did not cross-examine prosecution witnesses despite repeated opportunities and refused to cooperate with the trial court’s directions. Even after the supply of documents under Section 207 CrPC, Respondent No. 2 continued to file fresh applications under Section 91 CrPC and sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC, all of which were dismissed.

6. It is urged that the conduct of Respondent No. 2 obstructs the course of justice and justifies cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted earlier. 2 Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application No. 1 of 2025, Chandra Shekhar vs State of Uttarakhand& Another Ashish Naithani J.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the Respondent has abided by the conditions of anticipatory bail and has appeared before the trial court in compliance with the directions. It is argued that the trial delays are not solely attributable to Respondent No. 2 and that he is within his legal rights to avail remedies under the law, including seeking discharge and supply of documents.

8. Learned Counsel also contends that no violation of any express bail condition has occurred, and that cancellation of bail at this stage would amount to pre-trial punishment. It is emphasized that the High Court had previously considered all relevant facts, including the charge sheet, while granting anticipatory bail.

9. The fundamental issue for consideration in the present matter is whether Respondent No. 2, Mahesh Chandra Tamta @ Mahesh Chandra Agri, has misused the liberty granted to him by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2023, and whether the facts and circumstances arising after the grant of anticipatory bail warrant its cancellation under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

10. The factual matrix reflects that the FIR in question relates to a serious offence under Section 307 IPC, wherein the Applicant, an injured victim was shot in broad daylight by two assailants allegedly acting on the instructions of Respondent No. 2. The State has alleged a criminal conspiracy between the Respondent and co-accused, backed by documentary and electronic evidence, including CDRs, CCTV footage, recovery memos, and statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

11. The charge-sheet filed on 29.08.2020 specifically names Respondent No. 2 as a conspirator who orchestrated the attack on 3 Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application No. 1 of 2025, Chandra Shekhar vs State of Uttarakhand& Another Ashish Naithani J. account of a land dispute. The material on record, including disclosure statements and corroborative witness testimony, prima facie connects the Respondent to the offence. While this Court had, at the relevant time, exercised its discretion to grant anticipatory bail, the subsequent conduct of the Respondent must now be tested on the anvil of fair trial and judicial process.

12. After securing anticipatory bail, Respondent No. 2 did not approach the trial court in a manner expected of a person seeking equitable relief. The record reveals a pattern of calculated delay. Although charges were framed against him on 18.12.2024, his cross- examination of prosecution witnesses has either been avoided or refused despite several opportunities.

13. The orders passed by the learned trial court clearly record that the accused was afforded repeated opportunities to cross-examine PW- 1, PW-2, and PW-3, with full access to the judicial file; however, he declined to avail the same. On 15.04.2024, 27.04.2024, and

17.05.2024, his Counsel expressly refused to cross-examine the witnesses despite having complete access to the records. Consequently, the trial court was constrained to close the right of cross-examination.

14. While the right to a fair trial includes access to prosecution documents under Section 207 CrPC, the misuse of that right to obstruct proceedings cannot be condoned. The record discloses that even after the Hon’ble Court’s direction dated 16.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 694 of 2024, Respondent No. 2 adopted a tactic of filing serial applications, citing the non-supply of documents, and inconsistently expanding the list of required documents between High Court and trial court pleadings. 4 Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application No. 1 of 2025, Chandra Shekhar vs State of Uttarakhand& Another Ashish Naithani J.

15. Respondent No. 2 then filed an application under Section 91 CrPC for additional documents during the stage of charge framing, which was dismissed as not maintainable. Undeterred, he moved a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, and upon its rejection, filed two further applications under Section 340 CrPC and the Contempt of Courts Act on the same date. Thereafter, he sought repeated adjournments to avoid arguments even on those applications. This conduct leaves no doubt that his participation in trial proceedings is neither sincere nor bona fide.

16. Moreover, the certified order sheets of the trial court show that Respondent No. 2 has sought exemption from appearance on at least 10 occasions since 03.10.2023. The Applicant has also placed on record photographs suggesting that the Respondent was physically fit and socially active during the period when the medical exemption was claimed.

17. A party who approaches the Court seeking anticipatory bail does so on the premise of good faith, cooperation with the process of law, and willingness to stand trial. Anticipatory bail is not a shield to perpetuate procedural evasion. When such liberty is used as a tool to defeat justice, the Court not only has the power but the duty to intervene.

18. Applying the above principles to the present case, this Court finds that Respondent No. 2 has indulged in a sustained and systematic abuse of the judicial process. The liberty granted to him has been used to stall proceedings, mislead the courts, and frustrate the legitimate expectations of a fair and expeditious trial. 5 Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application No. 1 of 2025, Chandra Shekhar vs State of Uttarakhand& Another Ashish Naithani J.

19. The pendency of the trial for more than five years, without conclusion of even the prosecution evidence, is a matter of grave concern. This Court is of the considered view that the continuation of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would amount to an endorsement of dilatory tactics, and would erode public confidence in the fairness and efficacy of criminal justice delivery. ORDER For the reasons recorded above, the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent No. 2Mahesh Chandra Tamta @ Mahesh Chandra Agri vide order dated 29.09.2023 in Third Anticipatory Bail Application No. 02 of 2022, in relation to FIR No. 395 of 2019, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, under Sections 307, 120-B, and 34 IPC, is hereby cancelled. Respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within seven days from the date of this order, failing which the concerned court shall be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law. (Ashish Naithani J.)

25.06.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f218 22fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67 B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6 Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application No. 1 of 2025, Chandra Shekhar vs State of Uttarakhand& Another Ashish Naithani J.