Tej Ram Mourya v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

On behalf of t he applicant , Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel, has subm it t ed t hat t he applicant has been falsely im plicat ed in t his case. He has argued t hat t here is a significant delay in t he filing 2 of t he FI R, which was regist ered on Sept em ber 13, 2024, while t he alleged incident t ook place on Sept em ber 6, 2024, and t he vict im had ret urned hom e by Sept em ber 11, 2024. The learned counsel has furt her cont ended t hat t here are no independent wit nesses t o corroborat e t he St at e's case, and t he alleged incident appears im plausible given t hat t he applicant is a resident of anot her st at e.

6. A crucial subm ission m ade by t he applicant 's counsel is t hat bot h t he applicant and t he vict im are m aj ors, and t hey went t oget her of t heir own free will and consent . According t o t he affidavit filed in support of t he bail applicat ion, t hey lived in a hot el in Bareilly as husband and wife, and t he vict im even wore sindur ( verm ilion) , indicat ing a consensual relat ionship. The counsel has em phasised t hat t he applicant has no previous crim inal record, volunt arily surrendered t o t he police on Sept em ber 13, 2024, and has been in j udicial cust ody since t hen. Moreover, t he applicant is prepared t o furnish adequat e suret ies, and t here is no likelihood of his absconding or t am pering wit h evidence.

7. The learned Assist ant Dist rict Governm ent Advocat e, appearing for t he St at e, has vehem ent ly opposed t he bail applicat ion, em phasising t he grave nat ure of t he offences alleged against t he applicant . He has subm it t ed t hat t he vict im 's st at em ent s clearly indicat e t hat she was confined against her will and subj ect ed t o forced physical relat ions under t he t hreat of deat h. The St at e has argued t hat since t he applicant is a resident of anot her st at e, t here is a significant risk of his evading t he j udicial process if released on bail. 3

8. Upon careful considerat ion of t he m at erial on record and t he subm issions advanced by bot h part ies, t his Court finds t hat t he case warrant s t he exercise of j udicial discret ion in favour of grant ing bail.

9. The Court observes t hat t he incident alleged t o have occurred on 06.09.2024 at m idnight , whereas t he First I nform at ion Report ( FI R) was regist ered only on 13.09.2024, a delay of seven days. Even t hough t he vict im ret urned hom e on 11.09.2024, t he FI R was lodged t wo days lat er. The prosecut ion has not furnished a sat isfact ory explanat ion for t his delay, which raises doubt s regarding t he im m ediacy and spont aneit y of t he com plaint . I n crim inal j urisprudence, especially in offences of a serious nat ure, delay in lodging t he FI R wit hout adequat e j ust ificat ion affect s t he credibilit y of t he prosecut ion's case at t he t hreshold.

10. I t is furt her evident from t he affidavit s and support ing docum ent s t hat bot h t he applicant and t he vict im are adult s. I t has been st at ed t hat t hey lived t oget her in Bareilly for several days, where t he vict im present ed herself as t he applicant 's wife and wore sym bols of m at rim ony such as sindur. During t his period, she neit her at t em pt ed t o escape nor report ed any obj ect ion or dist ress t o any t hird part y or aut horit y.

11. These circum st ances prim a facie suggest t hat t he relat ionship m ay have been consensual in nat ure.

12. This Court t akes not e t he inconsist encies present in t he st at em ent s of t he vict im recorded under Sect ion 161 Cr.P.C. and Sect ion 183 of t he Bharat iya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit a ( BNSS) . A 4 specific cont radict ion is evident regarding a m at erial fact , whet her t he door of t he rent ed room was closed by t he applicant or by t he vict im herself.

13. I n her init ial st at em ent under Sect ion 161 Cr.P.C., t he vict im st at ed t hat she used t o close t he inside. However, in her subsequent st at em ent recorded under Sect ion 183 BNSS, she st at es t hat t he applicant had locked t he room from out side, which creat es an apparent discrepancy in t he narrat ive of forced confinem ent .

14. This Court also finds it relevant t o consider a specific inconsist ency bet ween t he oral allegat ions of t he vict im and t he obj ect ive m edical evidence available on record. I n her st at em ent recorded under Sect ion 183 of t he Bharat iya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit a ( BNSS) , t he vict im has alleged t hat t he applicant had physically assault ed her by bit ing her. However, a careful exam inat ion of t he m edical exam inat ion report of t he vict im reveals t hat no such inj ury, bit e m ark or ot herwise, has been not ed by t he exam ining m edical officer.

15. Moreover, it is not t he prosecut ion's case t hat t he applicant was arrest ed during t he invest igat ion; inst ead, it is adm it t ed t hat he volunt arily surrendered before t he police on 13.09.2024. This conduct indicat es his willingness t o subm it t o t he process of law and m it igat es any apprehension of him being a flight risk. The invest igat ion has concluded, and a chargesheet has already been filed, which dim inishes t he necessit y of furt her cust odial det ent ion.

16. Having considered t he rival subm issions, t he 5 m at erial available on record and t he nat ure of t he inconsist encies in t he prosecut ion's case, t his Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant has m ade out a case for t he grant of bail. The delay in lodging t he FI R, t he consensual nat ure t he relat ionship, t he inconsist encies t he vict im 's st at em ent s and t he absence of corroborat ion in m edical evidence all cum ulat ively support t he conclusion t hat cust odial det ent ion of t he applicant is not necessary at t his st age.

17. Let t he applicant , Tej Ram Maurya, son of Nand Ram , resident of Village Pat bara, Police St at ion Baheri, Dist rict Bareilly, Ut t ar Pradesh, be released on in connect ion wit h t he case at hand, upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- and t wo suret ies of t he like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he Court concerned.

18. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion st ands allowed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 17.04.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b 5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7 FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6