I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

14^TH OCTOBER, 2025

ANTI CI PATORY BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.1116 of 2025

Sushil Kumar Arya .....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another ..…Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kaushik,

Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Akshay Latwal,

Assistant Government

Advocate.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

This Application has been filed by the

applicant- Sushil Kumar Arya for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.115 of 2021 (Special Sessions Trial No.26 of 2021), registered at Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar. The present case is pending for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(in short, “Act, 1989”).

2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate, submitted on instruction that

the informant-victim has been informed by the Investigating Officer. There is no representation from the informant’s side.

3. According to the First Information Report dated 13.03.2021, the informant was a student at the intermediate college. She belongs to the Scheduled Caste. Applicant was a teacher in the said college. Applicant called her to his house for English tuition on 29.07.2020. He gave her a cold drink. She became unconscious after taking it. When she regained consciousness, she found herself naked. Applicant had made a video of her. He threatened her and raped her several times.

4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that on 29.07.2020, lockdown was in force. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the applicant sought permission from the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jhabrera on 27.07.2020 to travel to Moradabad as the permission was necessary for travel during the lockdown period. Applicant was granted permission on 28.07.2020. Applicant was in Moradabad from 28.07.2020 till 30.07.2020, therefore, the question of committing the alleged offence of rape with the informant on 29.07.2020 does not arise. The Investigating Officer confirmed with the other evidence in the form of entry record of the register, maintained by the Sugar Mill at Moradabad, where the applicant had stayed, and, on 29.07.2020., the mobile phone of the informant was located in the District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The medical examination report of the informant did not support her case. On 29.07.2020, the result of class XII was declared and the informant had failed in the examination, therefore, the question of giving a tuition on the said day does not arise and the applicant did not know that the informant is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1989 are not attracted in this case.

5. Mr. Nanveet Kaushik, Advocate, further submitted that the Investigating Officer filed a closure report. A protest petition was filed by the informant. The learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar rejected the closure report on 01.12.2021. Applicant challenged the said order before this Court, in which an interim order was passed in favor of the applicant. Applicant was never arrested during the course of the investigation. He cooperated fully in the investigation. He has no criminal antecedents.

6. This is a very old matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, special circumstances exist in this case warranting the jurisdiction of this Court being invoked directly.

7. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.

8. 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 to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commentin