Aarti Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the anticipatory bail cancellation application, applicant has challenged the order dated 14.09.2026 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, whereby, anticipatory bail was granted to respondent No.2 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.312 of 2026 Chandra Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that on the basis of forged will, mutation has been carried out in favour of respondent No.2, which resulted into filing of the FIR by the applicant.

I have perused the order passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, by which, anticipatory bail was granted to respondent No.2. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 mainly considering the fact that the sign of father in-law of respondent No.2 was allegedly forged and on the basis of lodging of first information report, respondent No.2 would be subjected to unnecessary humiliation and harassment. Learned Trial Court, while granting anticipatory bail application, has also imposed certain conditions upon respondent No.2.

Learned State Counsel submits that no case is made out for cancellation of order of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by the impugned order dated 14.09.2026 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital. He further submits that the matter, which has been set out in the first information report, has colour of civil litigation and the respondent No.2 is a woman.

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the order granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail cancellation application is rejected.