IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Bail Cancellation Application No. 26 of 2021

Arjna Sahu Alias Archana

...... Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents

Present:

Mr. Shankar Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant-informant.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. assisted by Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder

for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the private respondent.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of this application, the applicant-

informant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the

private respondent on 21.06.2021, passed in BA1 No.

1142 of 2021, (FIR No.121 of 2021, under Sections

376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Vikasnagar, District

Dehradun).

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

The

applicant-informant

has

filed

the

instant bail cancellation application on the ground

that the private respondent was granted bail based on

his assurance that he would marry the applicant-

informant. It is the case of the applicant-informant

that now the private respondent is not marrying her.

2

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant-informant

would submit that the private respondent was granted

bail on his assurance that he would marry the

applicant-informant,

but

he

is

denying

for

it.

Therefore, the bail deserves to be cancelled.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

private respondent would submit that post grant of

bail, the private respondent visited the house of the

applicant-informant and met her. But, the applicant-

informant threatened him to transfer his entire

property in her name and also claimed that the private

respondent is out on bail only based on relaxation

given by her. It is argued that, in fact, the applicant-

informant had also threatened the private respondent

that she would again send him behind bars.

6.

While

granting

bail,

the

Court

on

21.06.2021, noted the submissions made on behalf of

the parties. It is as hereunder:-

“During the course of hearing the bail

application, the prosecutrix appeared before this

Court through video conferencing and she stated

that the accused is ready to marry with her. Apart

from that, the parents of the accused and the

parents of the informant are also ready for the

same.

The FIR was silent about the date, time and

even month when the accused made physical

relationship with her. Admittedly, she lodged the

FIR when the accused refused to marry with her;

from the evidence both are major and the accused

3

is ready to marry with the informant; accordingly,

without making any comment on the merits, the

applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The bail application is thus, allowed and the

applicant is directed to be released on bail on his

executing a personal bond and furnishing two

reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the Court concerned.”

7.

It is true that during the course of hearing,

on behalf of the private respondent, it was told that he

was ready to marry the applicant-informant. But, the

fact remains that the bail is not conditional. Therefore,

without adverting much into the rival contention, this

Court is of the view that there is no ground for

cancellation

of

the

bail.

Accordingly,

the

bail

cancellation application deserves to be dismissed.

8.

The

bail

cancellation

application

is

dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

06.01.2023

Ravi Bisht