2025:UHC:2991 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 24TH APRIL, 2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 408 of 2025 Pankaj Kumar … Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand … Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present Application has been filed by the applicant Pankaj Kumar seeking anticipatory bail under Sections 452, 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Case Crime No. 346 of 2021 (Criminal Case No. 1883 of 2023), registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. 2. According to the First Information Report, the applicant came along with three-four persons on 26.06.2021 on the land-in-question and threatened to evict the land and stated that if the said land is not evicted within three days, he will kill everyone. 3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional 1 2025:UHC:2991 Advocate General for the State. 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that the applicant is the owner and in possession of the land-in- question. One Dharamveer Chug, Lokesh Chug and Rakshit Chug were interfering in the peaceful possession of the applicant and they were trying to raise illegal construction on the land of the applicant. The applicant filed an Original Suit No. 123 of 2023 against the said persons, which was decided ex-parte in favour of the applicant on 25.05.2024. He was granted interim relief in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.303 of 2022, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the First Information Report. 5. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant is not a previous convict. He is a permanent resident of District Shamli (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 6. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally. 7. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned 2 2025:UHC:2991 counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Pankaj Kumar, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case; (iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court. 9. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 24.04.2025 Shiv/ 3