ANURAG DOBHAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010191772026

2026:UHC:9834
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/1817/2026


Anurag Dobhal
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Bharat
Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3. Applicant – Anurag Dobhal, who is
in judicial custody in connection with
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 411 of 2026,
registered at Police Station Nehru
Colony, District Dehradun, for the
offence punishable under Sections
117(2), 191(2), 351(3), 140(1), 3(5) of
B.N.S. has sought his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. Learned senior counsel for the
applicant would submit that the F.I.R.
was lodged by the informant alleging
that the applicant, along with 8–10

UKHC010191772026

2026:UHC:9834
other persons, assaulted him,
attempted to kill him and tried to
abduct him. He would further submit
that the applicant is the brother-in-law
of the informant, as the applicant’s
cousin sister is married to the
informant; that, there was some
matrimonial discord between the
informant and the applicant’s cousin
sister; that, on the date of the alleged
incident, the applicant called the
informant to a cafe to discuss and
resolve the matrimonial dispute
concerning his cousin sister.
6. Learned senior counsel would
further submit that the F.I.R. was
initially registered under Sections
117(2), 191(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S.
however, during the course of
investigation, Section 140(1) of the
B.N.S. was also added. He would
further submit that the essential
ingredients of the offence under Section
140(1) of the B.N.S. are not attracted
against the applicant, as there is no
allegation to establish that the
applicant compelled or forced the
informant to accompany him against
his will. He would further submit that,
as recorded in the impugned bail
rejection order, the injuries sustained
by the informant/injured are simple in
nature. It is further contended that the
applicant has been implicated in the
present case in the backdrop of a

UKHC010191772026

2026:UHC:9834
matrimonial dispute and that the co-
accused has already been enlarged on
bail.
7. Learned senior counsel would
further submit that the applicant has
been in judicial custody since
05.10.2026; that he is a permanent
resident of District Dehradun and,
therefore, there is no likelihood of his
absconding; and that the trial is not
likely to conclude in the near future. In
view of the aforesaid submissions,
learned senior counsel prays that the
applicant be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the prayer for
bail. However, he does not dispute that
the bail rejection order records the
injuries sustained by the
informant/injured to be simple in
nature or that the applicant is in
judicial custody.
9. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on
record, this Court takes note of the
nature of the allegations, the
submission that the injuries sustained
by the informant/injured are simple in
nature, the period of incarceration
undergone by the applicant, the fact
that the co-accused has already been
enlarged on bail. These circumstances

UKHC010191772026

2026:UHC:9834
are relevant for consideration of the
present bail application.
10. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for grant
of bail.
11. Accordingly, the first bail
application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant be released on
bail upon furnishing a personal bond
and two reliable sureties, each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.



(Alok Mahra J.)
29.10.2026

Mamta