Sameer vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1295 UK

                                                  Reserved Judgment

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

       Anticipatory Bail Application No.172 of 2023

Sameer S/o Shafatulla
                                                   ...... Applicant

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.                      ..... Respondents

Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State

                                         Date of Judgment: 9th May, 2023

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.

Delay condonation application being IA No.1/2023 stands

allowed. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on

record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Instant application for anticipatory bail has

been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.13 of 2023,

under Section 376 of IPC, Police Station Mussoorie,

District Dehradun.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit

that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the case; the complainant was major when

she met the applicant and was a consenting party. He

would further submit that the F.I.R. is highly belated as

the fact that the applicant belongs to Muslim religion was

known to the complainant since long but she did not lodge

any report at that point of time and continued their

relationship for six years. He would further submit that

the applicant was ready to solemnize marriage with the

complainant and it was the parents of the complainant

who did not agree for their marriage.

5. Learned State Counsel would vehemently

oppose the application for anticipatory bail and would

submit that the investigation is underway and during the

course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was

recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically

stated against the applicant; the complainant has stated

that they became friends through Facebook; he told her

that he is Hindu and on his Facebook profile also he used

his surname as "Dixit" and at the inception of the

relationship applicant/accused misrepresented himself

and trapped the prosecutrix in his love; had

applicant/accused not misrepresented to be of her faith,

the prosecutrix would not have given in to the

applicant/accused.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of

material available on file, in the opinion of the Court, the

applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage.

The Anticipatory Bail Application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 09.05.2023 Rajni