Uttarakhand High Court
Furkan vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7 of 2026
Furkan ..........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case
Crime/FIR No.1108 of 2022, dated 25.09.2022, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354, 336, 427 IPC,
Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Initially the first anticipatory bail application was
rejected on 27.11.2025. In fact, the Court had noted that post
incident an FIR No.280 of 2025 was also lodged under Sections
115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against
the applicant and others at Police Station Manglaur, District
Haridwar. CCTV footages are placed in objections which reveal that,
in fact, the applicant was seen running with lathi. In para 16 of the
first bail order, the Court records that according to the
Investigating Officer, after hearing the commotion, the applicant
was running at the place of incident, which means that the
Investigating Officer was aware of the CCTV footages. This fact was
also noted at the time of rejection of the first anticipatory bail
application that in FIR No.280 of 2025, Final Report was already
2
filed, but the Court recorded that the informant proposes to file its
objections in terms of filing protest petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
informant’s protest petition has already been rejected by the court
of Judicial Magistrate First, Roorkee, District Haridwar on
23.12.2025. Therefore, there is no reason to deny anticipatory bail
to the applicant. The order dated 23.12.2025, by which, the protest
petition has been rejected and Final Report has been accepted has
been placed as Annexure No.5 to the anticipatory bail application.
5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the
Investigating Officer was hands in glove with the applicant; he had
not collected evidence properly; the CCTV footages were not made
part of the investigation. Therefore, though the Final Report has
been submitted, a complaint case has already pending against the
applicant. The statements of witnesses have already been recorded,
who supported the case.
6. The Court does not want to comment as to what
happened in the subsequent FIR No.280 of 2025 at this stage. The
fact remains that a complaint case qua the incident is still alive.
The order by which protest petition has been rejected records that
the CCTV footages were not made part of the investigation.
7. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that re-
investigation may be done. The protest petition’s order accepting
FIR does not record about the CCTV footages which is stated
hereinbefore, were acknowledged by the Investigating Officer, who
3
records that after hearing the commotion, the applicant was
running at the place of incident.
8. As the Investigating Officer made lapses the
investigation, whether the FIR No.280 of 2025 filed in the instant
case is genuine, this Court may not speculate on it.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of
the view that this is not a case, in which, the applicant should be
granted second anticipatory bail. The instant second anticipatory
bail application deserves to be rejected.
10. The second anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
20.03.2026
Sanjay