Rizwan vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 187 of 2023, under Section 323, 376 (2) (n) IPC, Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)/5 of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the applicant sexually exploited the victim, a young girl of 17 years a few months prior to lodging of the FIR. The victim revealed it to her father on 15.07.2022. FIR records that the applicant has also made some intimate videos and he blackmailed the victim in the name of making the intimate videos viral.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is 20 years of age, whereas, the victim is 17 years of age. They both were in relationship. He has referred to the statement of the victim recorded during investigation or at trial and also referred to certain photographs.

Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case during investigation and at trial.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

During investigation or at trial, the victim has stated that she was in relationship with the applicant. The applicant established physical relations with her, but he made intimate videos. Although during investigation, the victim has stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that when she asked the applicant to marry her, the applicant asked her to convert her religion. As such, it is not stated by the victim in her statement given in the court. It appears that the parties were in relationship.

In the cases of Mahesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2634, Faizan Wahid Baig v. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MHOR/62774/2022, Vijaylakshmi and another v. State and another, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 317, Shri John Franklin Shylla v. State of Meghalaya & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Megh 303 and Ashik Ramjali Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1390, the Courts have either granted bail or quashed the proceedings or acquitted the accused in the cases like instant one.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that subject to certain conditions, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

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, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant or any of his relatives shall not make any contact with the victim, in any manner, whatsoever, either physically, electronically or by any other means.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and the applicant should not tamper with evidence.