MADAN MOHAN JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) The instant Application is preferred praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 382 of 2025 dtd. 23/10/2025, P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital, for the offences punishable under Ss. 109, 190, 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), and 352 of B.N.S., 2023. The applicant has already preferred WPCRL No. 1389 of 2025 to quash the FIR 23/10/2025 being FIR No. 0382 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Sec. 109 and 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. The said petition came to be rejected by order dtd. 20/11/2025. In the said instant case, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is an innocent of the offence alleged against him; that he hails from a respectful family; that his family is of three brothers; the elder brother has retired from the Army and his younger brother is a renowned footballer; that he received a message that the vehicle was using dual number plates and on receipt of the said information, he informed the police and the Department found that the vehicle was carrying beef / cow meat and; that he made it live on his Face-Book handle and registered an FIR against the driver for using dual number plates and; that thereafter, the wife of the victim, as a counter-blast and an afterthought, had got registered an FIR against him. He would further submit that the Face Book live recording would clearly show that he has not assaulted the victim, nor has he been the cause of the assault and; that it was he who had prevented the mob from further assaulting the victim. He would further submit that one of his supporters approached the victim and the victim had informed him that but for the intervention of the applicant he would have suffered fatal injuries and, hence, he would submit that he be permitted to appear before the I.O. and participate in the investigation and; that till the completion of the investigation, protection, granted earlier, be continued.

(3.) Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, would submit that the investigation has revealed that the cause for gathering of the mob and subsequent assault are directly traceable to the applicant; that the applicant is a politically influential person and; that despite 23 raids on his house and potential places, the police has not been able to track-down and secure the applicant for questioning and that there is larger conspiracy which needs to be probed and which cannot be uncovered without custodial interrogation.