Meena Kholiya v. State of Uttarakhand

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2141 of 2024 Manohar …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Amar Murti Shukla and Ms. Lata Negi, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. S.C. Dumka learned A.G.A. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Heard Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel; Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant; and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. Two separate bail applications have been moved by the applicant, namely, Meena Kholiya in Bail Application No. 2006 of 2024 and another one filed by the applicant, namely Manohar, in Bail Application No. 2141 of 2

2024. They are connected and related to the same incident of the alleged crime and, therefore, are being together. The applicant, Meena Kholiya, represented by her learned counsel, Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, while the other applicant, Manohar, is represented by Mr. Amar Murti Shukla and Ms. Lata Negi, learned counsels. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A., appears on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, namely, Meena Kholiya, aged about 42 years w/o Shri Pushkar Singh Kholia r/o Village Nagla Tarai, Jhankaiya, District Udham Singh Nagar.

4. Both the applicants /accused are in jail in FIR No. 85/2024, under Sections 127(2), 61(2), 64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Jhankaiya District Udham Singh Nagar

5. At the outset, is contended complainant/prosecutrix lodged the FIR on 25.09.2024, alleging that applicant No. 1, Meena Kholiya, invited her to her place at Nagla Tarai. At about 7–8 p.m., Meena called her nephew, the other applicant/accused, namely Manohar, and informed the prosecutrix that they would have dinner together. Around 9 p.m., Manohar brought a bottle of whiskey, and he, along with Meena, started drinking. The complainant further stated that she was also offered a drink, but she declined. She alleges that Manohar then forcefully held her despite her resistance and sexually assaulted her. She further claims that while Manohar was sexually assaulting and raping her, she attempted to escape, but applicant Meena allegedly locked the door from the outside, thereby assisting Manohar in committing the crime. 3

6. It is contended that all contentions whatsoever narrated in the FIR are false and made up. It is said that the applicant, Manohar Singh Kholiya, and informant/prosecutrix have known each other from their early days. Both of them were in continuous touch through conversation on WhatsApp, which shows their binding friendship. This reflects that both were in a relationship.

7. It is further contended that Manohar Singh Kholiya is not only familiar with the informant/prosecutrix but also a close friend of her husband.

8. On behalf of the applicant Meena Kholiya, it is said that she is an elderly lady with two married daughters and one employed son, and it is beyond the truth that she will commit such an offence as alleged in the FIR. It is said that there is an age gap of 20 years between applicant no 1-Meena Kholiya and her nephew-Manohar Singh Kholiya, and it is highly improbable that both aunt and nephew have drunk together.

9. The learned counsels for the applicant in both the bail applications have shown some documents before this court suggesting that the informant/prosecutrix and applicant no.2, Manohar Singh Kholiya, were in a relationship. This is based on their WhatsApp chat.

10. That there is no medical proof that the informant/prosecutrix had been subjected to any abuse or sexual intercourse or that the Applicant has raped her, Manohar Singh Kholiya. No evidence indicates that applicant Meena Kholiya helped her nephew, applicant Manohar, in the commission of the said offence. Hence, it was prayed on behalf of both the applicants that they may be enlarged on bail as the grounds are sufficient. 4

11. Both the bail applications, as mentioned above, have been strongly opposed by Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned Additional Government Advocate, with the contentions that there is enough evidence that would show that Manohar Singh Kholiya had asked the reporter/prosecutrix to cook food for him and on the same day, i.e. 24.09.2024 at about 9 p.m. Manohar came home with a bottle of liquor. He offered her a drink, but she refused. Later, the applicant/accused, Manohar, forcefully started taking her to the room. Then the prosecutrix tried to reach Meena, but Manohar followed her and took her forcibly to her room by dragging her. The prosecutrix desperately tried to escape, but the applicant-Meena bolted the room from outside. This clearly shows that the applicant/accused Manohar forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her.

12. It is also submitted that the prosecution’s case has been supported by the statement of the victim (prosecutrix) herself, recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as well as the statement of other witnesses and therefore, there is no question of false implication in the present matter. The victim was medically examined, and the statement of the doctor who examined her was also recorded u/s 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

13. It is contended that the applicant-Manohar Singh Kholiya committed forceful rape upon victim/prosecutrix while the co-accused applicant Meena Kholiya has deep rooted conspiracy and has helped in the commission of crime.

14. It is requested that the involvement of the present applicant/accused persons and the gravity of the offence, the bail may be rejected. 5

15. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perusal of the record, at this juncture, I find it a fit case for bail for both matters: 1) BA1/2006/2024 Meena Kholiya Vs. State of Uttarakhand. 2) BA1/2141/2024 Manohar Vs. State Uttarakhand.

16. At the outset, it is evident that both the prosecutrix and the applicant, Manohar Singh Kholiya, are adults. Without going into the merits, and as per the documents shown before the court, they seem to be in a relationship. The prosecutrix's medical report mentions no case of violence against her, and it is also shown that her hymen is torn.

17. Likewise, at this juncture, this court finds no grounds that applicant Meena Kholiya may have assisted Manohar in the commission of a crime. Hence, this Court is of the view that the applicants, namely Meena Kholiya and Manohar Singh Kholiya, deserve bail at this stage. The Bail Applications are allowed.

18. Let the applicants, Meena Kholiya and Manohar Singh Kholiya, be released on bail after executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

19. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court to cancel the bail. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 25.02.2025