Arman vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani, J

The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Arman, aged 19 years, S/o Sri Munna, R/o Ward No.21, Indra Nagar, Haldwani, District Nainital. The applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.132 of 2024, registered at Police Station Banbhulpura, District Nainital, under Section 376 of IPC. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties, and perused the records.

According to the FIR, the complainant was married to one Sri Aadil on 16.07.2022, as per muslim rites and ceremonies, and was living with her husband for almost two years. During this period, the applicant and the complainant came in contact with each other. The applicant kept taking the complainant to various places and also coming to the complainant’s house in the absence of her husband and many other places from time to time and kept having physical relations with the complainant by giving false assurance of marriage to the complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the complainant are major, and no offence of Section 376 of IPC is made out against the applicant, as complainant shown herself married and physical relation was developed with consent.

Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant, and submits that the bail was granted to the applicant by the learned trial court vide order dated 02.07.2024, but the bail application of the applicant was cancelled by the learned trial court on the ground that the applicant is threatening the complainant with dire consequences. He further submits that statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC of the complainant, was in favour of the prosecution.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that both applicant and complainant are major and they have developed physical relationship with consent, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant – Arman, be released on bail, subject to furnishing of his two reliable sureties and person bonds, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.

However, it is made clear that if there surfaces a perception of threat by the applicant against the complainant, then the complainant will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant.