Abhinav Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Rakesh Thapliyal, J

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following Order: (per Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

The Bail Application is allowed.

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.