Uttarakhand High Court
Abhinav Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
OCTOBER 10, 2023
Bail Application No. 1012 OF 2023
Abhinav Pratap Singh. .........Applicant.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. .......Respondent.
Counsel for the applicant: Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Counsel for the State: Mr. V.S. Pal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate along
with Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
Counsel for the complainant/victim: Mr. Syed Nadim, appointed as
Amicus Curiae.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following
Order: (per Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking bail in respect of FIR No. 360 of
2022, for the offence cognizable under Sections 376 and 506
IPC and Section 3(2)(V)(A) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, PS.
I.T.I, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. As per the contents of the FIR, the victim raised the
allegations that she is in relationship with the applicant for
the last three years. The applicant made physical relationship
with her and also assured her of marriage. It is further
alleged in the FIR that, subsequently, the applicant neglected
the victim and abused her with caste-coloured remarks.
Thereafter, the complaint was made to the police and a
compromise also took place between the parties with the
intervention of police. The applicant and his family members
agreed for the marriage of the victim with the applicant after
the marriage of the applicant's brother.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even as
per the version of the FIR, the relationship, which has been
developed between the applicant and the victim, was
consensual.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that
the victim is major, and, if any relationship was developed, it
was with the free consent of the victim.
5. The counter affidavit has been filed by the
Investigating Officer, wherein, the statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C., is also enclosed alongwith the medical report.
6. On 26.09.2023, the victim personally appeared before
this Court, and, on that date, on her desire, Mr. Syed Nadim,
Advocate, was appointed as an Amicus Curiae by the
complainant, who gives valuable assistance to this Court. A
counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant
and in Para Nos.6 and 7, the following averments have been
made, which are being reproduced as under:-
"6.That the contents of paragraph no.3 of the affidavit in support of
bail application are matter of record. However, it is submitted that the
intimate relation between the complainant/informant and
accused/applicant was in continuous for three years, when the
accused/applicant denied for marriage with the complainant/informant,
then she became angry with the accused/applicant, and on this pretext,
she lodged the aforesaid F.I.R against the accused/applicant. The frame
of mind of complainant/informant was not under her control and she
was of the opinion that the accused/applicant deceived her by making
false promise of marriage and developed the intimate relation with the
complainant/informant.
7.That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the affidavit in support of the bail application, it
is respectfully submitted that the relation between the
complainant/informant and accused/applicant was continued for three
years, the contention of the paragraphs under reply are not submitted
as stated hence denied a detailed reply has already given in the
preceding paragraphs."
7. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel placed before
this Court a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sonu alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine 181. By giving
reference of this judgment, learned Senior Counsel further
makes reliance on the statement of complainant recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, which is brought on record by
the Investigating Officer by way of a counter-affidavit, CA-2,
wherein, the victim herself has stated that since October,
2019, she knows the applicant; she was in relationship with
him for three years, and an assurance was given for
marriage, but, subsequently, the applicant declined.
8. After taking into consideration the contents of the FIR
and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is
clear that the relationship between the applicant and the
victim was consensual in nature, and, both of them were in
relationship for about a period of more than three years.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion
on the merit of this case, this Court is of the view that this is a
fit case for grant of bail, particularly, on the basis of the
statement, as given in the counter affidavit, the extract of
which has been referred to as hereinabove.
10. The Bail Application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Reena Bisht
