Praveen Salar vs. The State Of Uttarakhand

ITEM NO.19

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5609/2022

COURT NO.3

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-05-2022 in FBA No.68/2022 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital)

PRAVEEN SALAR

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

FROM (With $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{A}$ No.82875/2022-EXEMPTION FILING $0.T.$ and $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{A}$ No.82876/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)

Date: 16-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

	For Petitioner(s)
		$\mathsf{Mr.} ; :$

Suhaas Ratna Joshi, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Saial Singhal, Adv.

• Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Omkar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Chand, Adv.
• Mr. Shaswat Sidhant, Adv.
• Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

SECTION II-B

Respondent $(s)$

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

• 1 By an order dated 7 May 2022, a Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand while entertaining Bail Application No 68 of 2022 directed that the second respondent be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.
• 2 A Counter affidavit has been filed in these proceedings by the Investigating Officer indicating that after the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet has been filed on 2 October 2021, for alleged offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
• 3 The second respondent was in judicial custody from 31 August 2021 to 7 May 2022. Moreover, the Court has been apprised of the fact that all the accused except for the second respondent were granted bail. The second respondent has since also been granted bail, as noted above.
• 4 In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand, it has been stated that the petitioner has submitted a complaint to the SHO/Circle Officer, Kotwali Manglore alleging that he and his spouse are being threatened by the second respondent and other persons. Both the petitioner and his spouse are stated to be doctors.
• 5 The Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand has submitted that the complaint filed by the appellant would be investigated by the Senior Superintendent of Police and if the allegations are true, necessary steps shall

be taken in accordance with law for breach of the conditions on which the bail has been granted to the second respondent.

• 6 We grant liberty to the petitioner to apply before the High Court for cancellation of bail in the event that there is any breach of the conditions subject to which the bail was granted.
• 7 Subject to the grant of aforesaid liberty, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court at the present stage.
• 8 The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar shall look into the complaint which has been submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week from today and take necessary action thereafter in accordance with law in the event that there is a breach of any of the bail conditions. In the event that the petitioner comprehends any danger to his own safety or the safety of his spouse, it would be open to the petitioner to apply to the SSP Haridwar for being granted personal protection.
• 9 The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
• 10 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master