Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Arman @ Arya - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2860 of 2022
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Bail - Relationship - The court considered the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the victim, and based on the victim's statements expressing her desire to marry the applicant, concluded that the case was fit for bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought release on bail in a case involving allegations of forcible physical relations and pressuring the victim to convert her religion.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the victim's statements and concluded that the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the victim warranted granting bail.
Issues: Nature of the relationship between the applicant and the victim, victim's statements, fit for bail
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the victim's statements expressing her desire to marry the applicant, indicating a pre-existing relationship.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail.
Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Arman @ Arya is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.119 of 2022, under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 IPC, Police Station Dalanwala, District- Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the applicant and the victim were known to each other. One day, the applicant forcibly established physical relations with the victim in a hotel and took some obscene photographs. Thereafter, the applicant established physical relations with the victim on multiple occasions and pressurized her to convert her religion. With theses and other averments, the FIR has been lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the applicant and the victim, both were in relationship; the victim has already been examined at trial; she was major; she has stated that prior to the alleged incident, she used to send letters to the applicant; she had also written to the applicant that she wanted to marry the applicant. The statement of the victim recorded in court has been referred to, particularly, Paras 19 and 20 have been referred to.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the statement of the victim is already on record. State need not file any counter affidavit now. It is argued that the victim has supported the prosecution case. In Paras 2 and 5, the victim has stated that the applicant forcibly established relations with the victim.
6. The Court avoids any deeper scrutiny. Factually, in Paras 19 and 20, the victim has stated that she had given letters to the applicant and expressed her desire to marry the applicant. Para 20, which the victim has written on her communication made to the applicant, in fact, reveals that they were in relationship.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
