Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand

applicant Sandeep (aged about 28 years), S/o Shri Uttam Singh, R/O 594, Gali No. 4, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 0393 of 2024, registered under Section 316 (2), 351(3), 352, 64(1), 84 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

3. At the very outset, it was contended that the present matter is of two consenting adults, though both of them are married but took an unwarranted decision. On 1st July, 2024, the victim left her house under pretext that applicant worked in the bank but did not return. It was only on 1st of July, 2024, she called her son that she has decided to finally live in Delhi. The missing report had been lodged in this context and on 18th July, 2024, a First Information Report was lodged.

4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant and the victim got in touch in a fair at Rishikesh that resulted in exchange of contact and further it graduated to telephonic calls. The victim came to see the applicant on 17th July, 2024 at Meerut in the Nauchandi fair on 14/15 July, 2024. On 17th July, 2024 after having found the location of his wife, the victim/complainant reaches there at Meerut and she was finally recovered from there.

5. After recovery of the victim, the next date i.e. 18th July, 2024, the victim moved an application to the concerned Police Station, wherein she mentioned that due to some annoyance, she 2 left her house on 1st July, 2024 and stayed at her acquaintance house. It is further stated that she is a major on her own free will she left her house that no one was responsible for her action. It is contended that later, under due pressure and coercion changed her version and levelled false allegations against the applicant in regard to commission of rape and exploitation.

6. It is further contended that when the applicant was arrested from his house on 9th August, 2024 and on his arrest, the victim was not recovered with him, she was recovered from Nauchandi fair at Meerut and when she was recovered, applicant was not with her.

7. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He did not abducted the victim, neither did he committed any commission of rape upon her. Thus, he may be enlarged on bail as he is in jail.

8. A mention has been made on behalf of the applicant referring to copy of WhatsApp (annexure no. 2) between the victim and her cousin. Referring to the same, the applicant again pointed out to this Court that the victim left her house on her own free will and under no pressure or persuasion of the applicant. The applicant cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever, the allegations he may have been charged with.

9. The bail has been strongly opposed on behalf of the State. All the averments as stated in the bail application are false and are just made up to belie the alleged criminal activities of the applicant so charged with.

10. The Statement of victim under Section 180/183 of BNSS, wherein she has categorically stated that she was abducted and raped by the applicant without her own free will.

11. The victim was recovered on the basis of the mobile location and she was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The statement was recorded by the Police investigating team under Section 180 and 183 of the complainant victim Gaurav Singh Chauhan clearly rope-in the applicant in the present matter.

12. The prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded and if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may influence the key witnesses or abscond from the trial, hence, the present bail application is strongly opposed. 3

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, at this stage, without going into merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail, firstly, as the victim is an adult and on the basis of her primary statement, it seems that she left her house on her own free will and, secondly, I do not find cause that would indicate that the applicant eloped her or forced her to leave the house of her husband and live with the applicant and thirdly, she was not recovered from the custody of the applicant.

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing of the records, at this juncture, without going into merits of the Case, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. ORDER

15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sandeep (male aged about 28 years) S/o Shri Uttam Singh, R/O 594, Gali No. 4, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 0393 of 2024, registered under Section 316 (2), 351(3), 352, 64(1), 84 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun, be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (I) On his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court, (II) The applicant will not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission. (III) The applicant will not tamper with evidence or influence any witnesses in any manner. (IV) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed in the matter unless exempted for valid reasons, (V) The prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail if it is found that the applicants have violated any of the above conditions. (Ashish Naithani, J.)

28.02.2025 Kaushal