Uttarakhand High Court
Amandeep Singh Saluja ... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 October, 2021
N THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
1st Bail Application No. 2299 of 2021
Order on bail application of the accused
Amandeep Singh Saluja ... Applicant (in jail)
Vs
State of Uttarakhand ... Opp. Party
Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Heard Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Kuldeep Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr.
Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, for the Complainant and
perused the records.
The applicant is in jail being implicated in
FIR No. 354 of 2019, under Sections 377, 498A of
I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in
Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital.
Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel
for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
and he has been falsely framed in the aforesaid
offences. She further submits that applicant has no
criminal history and he is a respectable member of
society and there is no possibility of his fleeing away
from justice. She further submits that the charge
sheet has been filed in the matter and there is no
occasion of the applicant tampering with the
evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance upon definition of "Rape", as given
in Clause (a) of Section 375 of I.P.C., which reads as
under:-
"375. Rape- A man is said to commit
"rape" if he-
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into
the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a
woman or makes her to do so with him or
any other person."
She further submits that in view of the
provision contained in Exception (2) to Section 375
of I.P.C., concept of marital rape is alien to Indian
Penal Code. Exception (2) to Section 375 of I.P.C is
extracted below:-
"Exception 2. - Sexual intercourse or
sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the
wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not
rape."
She has also referred to the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Independent Thought vs Union of India & another
reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800.
Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel
for the applicant further submited that the
allegation made in the First Information Report
would be covered by the definition of 'Rape', as
given in Section 375(a) qua the applicant. She has
further pointed out that in her statement recorded
before the Women Cell, no allegation of unnatural
sex was made by the complainant, however, in the
FIR, which was filed subsequently, the story of
unnatural sex was added.
Per contra, Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani,
learned counsel appearing for the complainant
submits that Exception (2) to Section 375 of I.P.C.
would not be attracted to the facts of the present
case, as the allegation against the applicant is of
unnatural sex, which is covered under a different
provision, namely, Section 377 of I.P.C.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned A.G.A. for the
State has opposed the bail application by
contending that the complainant has supported the
FIR in her statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C.
Without entering into merits of the rival
contention made by learned counsel for the parties,
this Court is of the opinion that applicant deserves
to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in
the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
It is made clear that any observation
made by this Court is only for the purpose of
disposal of bail application. It shall not be taken
into consideration at all in any other proceedings.
It is also made clear that the applicant shall extend
full cooperation in the trial.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Aswal
