State of Uttarakhand v. Counsel for the

: Mr. learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Ayush Gaur and Ms. Mrinal Kanwar (through V.C.) complainant. JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The instant Application is preferred praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 382 of 2025 dated 23.10.2025, P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 190, 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), and 352 of B.N.S.,

2023. The applicant has already preferred WPCRL No. 1389 of 2025 to quash the FIR 23.10.2025 being FIR No. 0382 of 2025, for the offences punishable under section 109 & 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. The said petition came to be rejected by 1 order dated 20.11.2025. In the said instant case, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is an innocent of the offence alleged against him; that he hails from a respectful family; that his family is of three brothers; the elder brother has retired from the Army and his younger brother is a renowned footballer; that he received a message that the vehicle was using dual number plates and on receipt of the said information, he informed the police and the Department found that the vehicle was carrying beef / cow meat and; that he made it live on his Face-Book handle and registered an FIR against the driver for using dual number plates and; that thereafter, the wife of the victim, as a counter-blast and an afterthought, had got registered an FIR against him. He would further submit that the Face Book live recording would clearly show that he has not assaulted the victim, nor has he been the cause of the assault and; that it was he who had prevented the mob from further assaulting the victim. He would further submit that one of his supporters approached the victim and the victim had informed him that but for the intervention of the applicant he would have suffered fatal injuries and, hence, he would submit that he be permitted to appear before the I.O. and participate in the 2 investigation and; that till the completion of the investigation, protection, granted earlier, be continued.

3. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, would submit that the investigation has revealed that the cause for gathering of the mob and subsequent assault are directly traceable to the applicant; that the applicant is a politically influential person and; that despite 23 raids on his house and potential places, the police has not been able to track-down and secure the applicant for questioning and that there is larger conspiracy which needs to be probed and which cannot be uncovered without custodial interrogation.

4. It is a fact that despite various raids, applicant was successful in evading and avoiding the police and; that the application for issuance of NBW against the applicant had been filed before the Trial Court and the Trial Court has been pleased to allow the same by its order dated 03.11.2025. It is pertinent to note that the resort to legal remedies by the applicant has been initiated thereafter. It is also relevant to note that by Application dated 10.11.2025, the I.O. has also filed an Application invoking provisions of Sections 84 and 85 of BNSS to declare the applicant as a proclaimed offender and if the applicant is enlarged, he would certainly bring pressure 3 upon the complainant and the victim and ensure that the complainant and the victim resile from their stand and ensure to closure of proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing complainant, would submit that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant are without substance. She would submit that it was not merely the Face-Book live relay of the proceedings, but the days following thereafter. She would submit that the applicant has repeatedly asserted, even by his various messages about the incident.

6. The Court queried the learned counsel for the applicant has to how the applicant decided that the meat being transported was beef and not buffalo meat. On the Court’s further query whether the applicant is an expert, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he was not and to a further query by the Court as to how the applicant then concluded that it was cow meat, he would submit that he was informed by one Mr. Sagar.

7. The said statement is contradicted by the pleadings in Para-5 of the Affidavit, which reads as under:- “5. That it is stated here that prior to lodging of the impugned FIR, the applicant and other got lodged an FIR against the husband of complainant on 23.10.2025 being FIR No. 0381 of 2025 for the offences punishable under section 318 (4) of IPC, alleging therein that the accused / the husband of complainant who is carrying 4 two number plate of pickup and upon stopping the said vehicle he tried to hit the persons and thereafter the individual taken the vehicle at police station in which he had carrying the illegal cow meat.”

8. From a reading of the above Paragraph, prima facie, it is apparent that the applicant was amongst the persons who stopped the vehicle. If that be the case, then the absence of a video at the point of time of stopping the vehicle is something which is required to be established by the applicant.

9. Be that as it may, the conduct of the applicant in successfully evading arrest and despite having spoken to the C.O. on 06.11.2025 and a screen-shot of the phone having been placed before this Court, it is apparent that the applicant is an influential person.

10. The complainant has also produced photographs of the applicant with high dignitaries holding high posts and also with other politically influential members of the society.

11. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382, and in view of the serious objections raised by the prosecution with regard to the ability of the applicant to influence the investigation and the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant that the victim had informed one of his supporters that but for 5 the applicant he would have suffered even more badly, it is apparent that if the relief is granted, it would fatally vitiate fair investigation and is likely to scuttle and compromise the investigation and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the applicant has not been able to make out any ground to disregard the observations of the trial Court or objections of the prosecution.

12. Accordingly, the Application deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected.

13. The observations made hereinabove are for the purposes of disposal of the instant Application and shall not be construed as a pronouncement on the merits of the allegations and counter allegations in the case.

14. At this stage, Learned counsel for the applicant has also impressed upon the medical report stating that the injuries noted are merely simple injuries. We are surprised by the said submission as the photographs and the video, placed before the Court by the complainant, would clearly disclose a bleeding injury on the head, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be defined as ‘a simple injury’.

15. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. _______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 24th November, 2025 Rathour 6