Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1213/2025 on 27 November, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No. 1213 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. The applicant - Nadeem Kureshi, who
is in judicial custody in connection with
FIR/Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, under
Section 376 of IPC, registered at P.S.-
Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, has
sought his release on bail.
4. In this case, an FIR was lodged by
the complainant on 15.05.2025 under
Sections 313, 376 and 351(3) of IPC,
wherein, she has alleged that the accused
in the false pretext of marriage sexually
assaulted her and forced her to abort the
pregnancy. The applicant was arrested the
same day on 15.05.2025.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that both the complainant as
well as the accused, who are major were in
relationship since last more than three
years and admittedly during this
relationship, physical relations were made
between them, but, now, due to
differences, their relationship have become
sore, therefore, due to this, complainant
had lodged the complaint alleging that the
accused in the false pretext of marriage
sexually assaulted her. In this contention,
he had drawn attention of this Court to the
statement given by the complainant before
the doctor on 15.05.2025, wherein, she
has admitted the fact that complainant and
the accused were in relationship for last
more than three years. Several times
physical relations were made and they
used to meet every 15-20 days and they
used to go to a hotel and to a different-
different places and now, he has refused to
marry her.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel
vehemently opposed the bail application
and would submit that the offence alleged
is of a grave and heinous nature.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
the cases of Samadhan Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2528 and Mahesh Damu Khare
Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC
398.
9. Admittedly, the relationship continued
for a period of more than three long years,
which is a considerable period of time.
They remained close and emotionally
involved. In such cases, physical intimacy
that occurred during the course of a
functioning relationship cannot be
retrospectively branded as instances of
offence of rape merely because the
relationship failed to culminate in
marriage.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, on numerous
occasions, taken note of the disquieting
tendency wherein failed or broken
relationships are given the colour of
criminality. The offence of rape, being of
the gravest kind, must be invoked only in
cases where there exists genuine sexual
violence, coercion, or absence of free
consent. To convert every sour relationship
into an offence of rape not only trivialises
the seriousness of the offence but also
inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma
and grave injustice. Such instances
transcend the realm of mere personal
discord. The misuse of the criminal justice
machinery in this regard is a matter of
profound concern and calls for
condemnation.
11. Therefore, even if the prosecution's
case is accepted at its face value, it cannot
be concluded that the complainant
engaged in a sexual relationship with the
appellant solely on account of any
assurance of marriage from the appellant.
The relationship between the parties was
cordial and also consensual in nature. A
mere break up of a relationship between a
consenting couple cannot result in
initiation of criminal proceedings.
12. Having considered the submissions,
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the view that it is a
case fit for bail and the applicant deserves
to be enlarged on bail.
13. Accordingly, the present bail
application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant be released on bail
on his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties each of the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
(Alok Mahra J.)
27.11.2025
Ujjwal
