Surjeet Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Surjeet Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Ravindra Maithani, J.—Applicant Surjeet Kumar is in judicial custody in FIR No.0219 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Premnagar, District Dehradun. He seeks short term bail on the ground that he and the victim are getting married.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the applicant and the victim befriended each other. Their marriage was fixed. Thereafter, the applicant established physical relations with the victim, but subsequently, he declined.

4. In a rape case simpliciter, the Court may not encourage marriage between the parties. But, it is not a case simpliciter of rape. According to the FIR, itself, first parties had engaged. Their marriage was fixed. Thereafter, the applicant established physical relations and, subsequently, declined to marry the victim. And now it is being stated that the applicant and the victim both are getting married.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the applicant should be granted short term bail for a period of 2 weeks.

6. Short term bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document