HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No.1155 of 2024 Gurjant Singh ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Mehboob Rahi, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0160 of 2024, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 29.05.2024, the applicant along with co-accused attacked the injured Amit Sharma due to which he sustained injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that co-accused having similar role have already been granted bail. Although, non bailable warrant has allegedly been issued against the applicant but it does not totally bar entertaining the anticipatory bail. He has referred to the principles of law as laid down in the case of Asha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal 2 Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 (SLP (Crl.) No. 13123 of 2024 dated12.11.2024. 5. Learned State Counsel admits that the role of the applicant and co-accused Raghav is similar, who has already been granted bail. But, she would submit that non bailable warrants have already been issued against the applicant. She would submit that in view of the judgment as laid down in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine 282, the applicant is not entitled to bail. 6. It is true that it in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice.” 7. In the case of Asha Dubey (supra), “the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Hon’ble Court further 3 observed that “when the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued. 8. In the instant case, allegations have been levelled against Nityanand Gupta and others. Nityanand Gupta has been exonerated. The co-accused having similar role has already been granted bail. 9. Now, this Court is of the view that merely non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant, his anticipatory bail may not be rejected. 10. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed. 11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions: 4 (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation. (ii) He shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever. (iii) He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court. (iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the AO. The passports 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 AO. (v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 03.01.2025 Ravi