Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/320/2022 on 5 May, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BAI No. 320 of 2022
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J .
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Ms. Garima Thapa,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. A.K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is first bail application moved on
behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail
in connection with Case Crime No. 11 of
2021 for the offence punishable under
Sections 376, 506 IPC and under Section
3(1)D, 3(1)B(i) of S.C. and S.T. Act
registered at P.S. Rikhanikhal, District Pauri
Garhwal.
It is argued by learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant has falsely been
implicated in the present case; that the
applicant has no criminal history and that he
is languishing in jail since 17.01.2022. He
further submits that both the parties are
major and matured person; that the
accused applicant belongs to District
Uttarkashi and the victim belongs to District
Pauri and the distance between these two
villages is about 200 km; that the FIR is
afterthought and has been lodged after the
consultation; that from a bare perusal of the
FIR, it reveals that no offence under Section
376 & 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)D,
3(1)B(i) of S.C. And S.T. Act is attracted
against the applicant; that there is no
evidence regarding the alleged offence; that
the applicant is a permanent resident of
Uttarakhand and a Army Personnel,
therefore, there is no chance of his
absconding or tempering with the evidence;
and that according to the FIR, the
occurrence took place under the jurisdiction
of Police Station Uttarkashi but the victim
herself mentioned in the FIR that her case is
to be investigated by P.S. Pauri, therefore,
Police Station Pauri had no jurisdiction to
investigate the present case.
In order to buttress his argument,
learned counsel for the applicant relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar
vs. The State of Maharastra and
another; reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608.
Learned State Counsel opposed the
bail application by contending that there are
credible evidence available against the
applicant. Furthermore, the statement of
the victim was recorded under Section 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has supported
the prosecution version.
Considering the submission of learned
counsel for the parties; and also considering
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar vs. The State of Maharastra and
another (supra) and without expressing
any opinion as to the final merits of the
case, this Court is of the view that the
applicant deserves bail at this stage.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant be released on bail,
on executing a personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to
the satisfaction of Court concerned.
All pending applications stand disposed
of, if any.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)
05.05.2022
SB
