Uttarakhand High Court
Ayush Kumar Alias Sikandar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 256 of 2026
Ayush Kumar Alias Sikandar. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. ...............Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Lalit Miglani in furtherance of his previous argument
placed reliance to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another 2021 Supreme (SC) 227 particularly by giving reference
of paragraph 8 and 12 and also placed reliance to another
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh
and Others vs. Ashish Mishra alias Monu and Another (2022) 9
SCC 321.
2. By referring the aforesaid judgment he submits that since
the applicant, who filed the impleadment/intervention
application was the informant in one of the case in which the
petitioner is facing the trial, therefore, he should be presumed to
be victim in the present case.
3. In response to his argument Mr. Lalit Sharma argued that
the victim is nowhere defined under the Gangster Act rather the
same is defined under section 2(1) (Y) of BNSS, 2023, which reads
as under:
2
“Definitions.
(1)In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(Y)”victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury
caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person
and includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim;”
4. By referring the aforesaid definition clause of victim Mr.
Lalit Sharma argued that on plain reading of the definition of
“victim” the applicant of IA No. 3/2026 does not fall under the
parameter of “victim”. In furtherance of his argument he also
placed reliance to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Others vs. Ashish Mishra
alias Monu and Another (2022) 9 SCC 321, which has also been
relied by Mr. Lalit Miglani, wherein the definition of victim has
been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 23,
which reads as under:
“23. A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked
to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to
participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right
to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such
a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of
investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal
or revision. We may hasten to clarify that ‘victim’ and
‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in
criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the
complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’, for even a stranger to
the act of crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly, a ‘victim’
need not be the complainant or informant of a felony.”
5. In addition to this, Mr. Lalit Sharma further placed reliance
to another judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court i.e. in
the case of Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others 2016
SCC Online 3250 by referring paragraph 52 and 53, which also
reads as under:
“52. Any emotional harm or injury, however grave it may be,
caused to any person not being the direct sufferer especially
when such emotional harm or injury is neither ingredient of the
offence nor is the fact in issue in the trial of the accused, cannot
3grant status of “victim” to such other person not being the direct
sufferer.
53. In nutshell, it can be concluded that victim means the
actual sufferer of offence (receiver of harm caused by the alleged
offence) and no person other than actual receiver of harm can be
treated as victim of offence, so as to provide him/her a right to
prefer appeal under the proviso of section 372. In absence of the
direct sufferer or in a case where the direct sufferer suffers a
disability his or her legal heir or guardian would qualify as a
victim.”
6. He also placed reliance to a judgment of learned Single
Judge of Allahabad High Court that too specifically pertains to the
Gangster Act i.e. in the case of Pappu vs. State of U.P. 2024 SCC
Online All 761 by referring paragraph 26, which also reads as
under:
“26. The criminal jurisprudence has developed that the victim
is being accorded proper opportunity of being heard not only at
the various stages of trial and even at the stage of disposal of
bail. But the story herein is a bit different. The matter in question
is under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, and not under the IPC or any other
Special Act and the complainant of the said case is the S.O. of the
police station-Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao. So the counsel
for the victim of the predicate offence i.e. Case No. 90 of 1998
does not come within the category of “victim” pertaining to the
present case, thus, the present prosecution has been initiated
against the appellant only on the basis of gang chart, which
records the criminal history of the appellant of various nature.”
7. By placing reliance to the aforesaid judgment and the
definition clause as defined under the Cr.P.C. as well as under
BNSS, 2023 Mr. Lalit Sharma submits that the instant IA
application has been moved by the applicant for his impleadment
as well as in order to intervene in matter is only for ulterior
purposes and motive, which is evident from the fact that in one of
the trial which the petitioner is facing is the prosecution witness.
8. Put up this matter on 26.02.2026.
4
9. On that day learned Brief Holder for the State shall make
submissions.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
24.02.2026
PR