Uttarakhand High Court
Akil Ahamad vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Anticipatory Bail Application No.1201 of 2024
Akil Ahamad ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 104 of 2019,
under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section
26 of the Forest Act, 1927, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-
accused having similar role have already been granted bail or
anticipatory bail.
4. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that non bailable
warrants were issued against the applicant, but he submits that
summons were never served on the applicant. Thereafter, bailable
warrants were never served. Merely, the process server of the police
station records that telephonically the applicant was informed about
the date fixed, but no telephone call was received by the applicant.
Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.
5. Learned State counsel submits that as per record, non
bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant, though he
2
admits that similarly placed all other co-accused have already been
granted bail or anticipatory bail.
6. The record reveals that even bailable warrants were not
served on the applicant, though the court has given a report that as
per police report service of bailable warrant on the applicant is
deemed sufficient. But the service report, which is on record, records
that there was nobody in the house, therefore, from the neighbour’s
phone, the date was informed. To whom the date was informed even
it is not known. Thereafter, non bailable warrants and process under
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been issued.
The summons have not been served on the applicant personally.
Bailable warrants have not been executed and straightway non
bailable warrants have been issued. Similarly placed co-accused have
been granted bail or anticipatory bail.
5. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of
the view that this is a case fit for anticipatory bail.
6. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
7. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be
enlarged on anticipatory 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:
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation.
(ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness in any
manner, whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the concerned court.
3
(iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the AO. 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 AO.
(v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) &
(iii) above.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
20.03.2026
Jitendra