AASIF vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010119682026

2026:UHC:7828
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

ABA/284/2026


Aasif
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Anurag Bhatt, Mr. Saurabh
Kumar and Mr. Suraj Shahi, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. By means of the present application,
the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in
connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No.
0227 of 2026, registered at Police Station
Raipur, District Dehradun, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109,
191(2), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that, according to the
allegations contained in the F.I.R., on
04.06.2026, at about 8:00 p.m., an
incident took place in the vegetable
market area near Nannurkheda Haat
Bazar, wherein the complainant was
allegedly assaulted by several persons,
including the present applicant, as a
result of which he sustained injuries on
his head requiring 32 stitches.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that a perusal of the
F.I.R. does not disclose any specific and

UKHC010119682026

2026:UHC:7828
distinct overt act attributed to the present
applicant; that, although the complainant
alleges that he sustained serious injuries
requiring 32 stitches, the material
presently available on record does not
prima facie establish any specific nexus
between the injuries allegedly sustained
by the complainant and any particular
overt act attributable to the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated
in the present case; that, the F.I.R. is
biased and motivated and has been given
a colour disproportionate to what was
essentially a local dispute; that, the police,
instead of conducting a fair and objective
enquiry, registered the F.I.R. against the
applicant without properly verifying his
presence and role in the alleged incident;
that, the applicant was not present at the
place of occurrence at the relevant time
and had travelled to Mussoorie along with
his friend and during his stay there, the
applicant allegedly generated digital
material, including photographs and
videos containing electronic time-stamps,
in support of his plea regarding his
whereabouts; that, the applicant is willing
to cooperate with the investigation and
furnish all relevant material, including his
Call Detail Records, which, according to
him, would support his plea of alibi,
therefore, the applicant is entitled to the
protection of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the anticipatory
bail application. He would submit that,
according to the prosecution case, about
12 to 15 persons, including the present
applicant, who is specifically named in the
F.I.R., allegedly assaulted the
complainant; that, as a consequence of

UKHC010119682026

2026:UHC:7828
the assault, the complainant sustained
serious injuries on his head and was
admitted to Coronation Hospital,
Dehradun, where 32 stitches were
allegedly administered. It is further
submitted that the complainant was
advised to undergo a CT Scan of his head
and subsequently underwent surgical
treatment in relation to the head injury,
including treatment concerning the
elevation of the depressed bone.
8. Learned State counsel would further
submit that, although the medical report
dated 04.06.2026 initially recorded the
injuries as simple in nature, the
subsequent medical condition and
treatment of the complainant indicate that
the injuries later developed serious and
life-threatening complications; that, that
the plea of alibi raised by the applicant
involves disputed questions of fact and
requires proper investigation.
9. He would further submit that such a
defence cannot ordinarily be conclusively
examined or adjudicated upon at the stage
of consideration of an application for
anticipatory bail; that, the statement of
the injured/victim has been recorded
during the investigation and supports the
prosecution version; that, considering the
nature and gravity of the allegations, the
injuries sustained by the complainant and
the stage of investigation, it is submitted
that the applicant is not entitled to the
discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
11. Having considered the rival
submissions and the material placed on
record, this Court finds that the applicant
is specifically named in the F.I.R. and the

UKHC010119682026

2026:UHC:7828
allegations relate to his participation along
with several other persons in the alleged
assault upon the complainant. The
prosecution case further reveals that the
complainant sustained injuries on his
head and underwent medical treatment.
The plea of alibi raised by the applicant,
based upon his alleged presence at
Mussoorie and the digital material relied
upon by him, is essentially a matter
requiring verification and investigation. At
this stage, this Court would not be
justified in undertaking a detailed
appreciation of such material or recording
any conclusive finding regarding the
defence of alibi.
12. Considering the nature and gravity of
the allegations, the manner in which the
incident is alleged to have occurred, the
nature of injuries sustained by the
complainant and the fact that the
investigation requires verification of the
applicant's role and the defence raised by
him, this Court does not find it to be a fit
case for exercising the discretionary
jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
13. Consequently, the anticipatory bail
application is dismissed.
14. It is, however, clarified that any
observation made hereinabove is confined
solely to the disposal of the present
anticipatory bail application and shall not
prejudice the rights of either party or
influence the investigation or any
subsequent proceedings on merits.
15. No order as to costs.

MA
MTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd
004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.09.01 17:10:57
+05'30'



(Alok Mahra, J.)
31-08-2026
mamta