2025:UHC:7950 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No. 995 of 2025 Gurpratap Singh @ Kaka Dult ................Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ........….Respondent [ Present:- Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Oral) The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed in connection with FIR No.0328 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 140(1), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 (1) (Da) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station Bazpur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. 2. As per the FIR, on 25.08.2025, at 20:00 Hours, the complainant Manish Kumar and his brother Mayank went to eat Biryani near Moradabad Chicken Corner Levada Bridge, where the applicant and 4-5 other persons, who were consuming liquor came to them and started beating brother of the complainant Mayank and after asking his name, put both of them in a Swift Car 1 2025:UHC:7950 and forcibly took them to Barhani at a deserted place. It has further been alleged in the FIR that the accused persons while beating them were using the castist words and gave them warning for dire consequences. Later on, when the accused persons came to know that the complainant and his brother were not involved in killing of Balraj Dalt, they left them on the road near Dhillon Dhaba. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there were other persons at the Moradabadi Chiken Corner from where it has been stated that the complainant and his brother were abducted, however, no such hue and cry was raised by them. Moreover, the crime under Section 3 (1) (Da) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) was not committed by the applicant as the allegation is that the said words were used in the car and not at any open place. 4. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid bail application orally. 2 2025:UHC:7950 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that, the applicant is liable to be granted Anticipatory Bail. 6. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. 7. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer (“IO”). In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation. (ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness/victim in any manner, whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court. (iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer (“IO”). The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case the applicant does not have passport, he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the IO. 3 2025:UHC:7950 (v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above. (vi) It is made clear that, in case, the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecuting agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) 08.09.2025 Kaushal 4