Vipin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR VERMA
- Neutral citation
- 2025:UHC:5667
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed and the order dated 07
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 376, 493, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 s. 3(2)(v)
- Constitution of India art. 21
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and the order dated 07.01.2025, granting interim…
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondent : : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, AGA assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. This Application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.228 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No.18 of 2020), registered at Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar under Sections 376, 493, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, “Act, 1989).
As per the First Information Report, the victim met the applicant. The applicant is an Advocate. He offered her a job in his chamber, where she started working. Subsequently, the applicant came close to the victim, assured her that he would marry her, took her 1 at various places, sexually exploited her and subsequently declined to marry.
Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned AGA for the State.
The evidence of the informant/ victim (PW1) was recorded on 12.06.2025. She did not support the case of the prosecution. She was declared hostile.
In the said circumstances, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, submitted that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 has not been made out. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in “Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala and Another”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant was granted interim bail on 07.01.2025, and, the conditions of the interim bail have not been violated by him.
Mr. Tumul Nainwal, AGA for the State, has opposed the anticipatory bail application. However, he conceded that the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution. 2
Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Operative part
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and the order dated 07.01.2025, granting interim bail to the applicant, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Vipin Kumar, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case.
(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.
It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court 3 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt : 03.07.2025. Pant/ 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed and the order dated 07
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 376, 493, 504, 506; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(v); Constitution of India — art. 21.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.