HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 713 of 2024
Saleem ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the informant.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 289
of 2024, under Sections 323, 376, 377, 506 IPC, Police
Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the husband of the
informant has died. The applicant came close to the
informant and under the pretext of marriage, he established
physical relations with her. Subsequently, he continued
doing so under the threat of making the video and
photograph viral.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that the informant is 40 years of age. She is mother of two
children. She has married twice. The relationship between
2
the applicant and the informant was consensual. There is
no assurance of marriage.
5. It is submitted that according to the objections of
the informant threats were extended after obtaining
anticipatory bail of which an application was given to SSP,
Udham Singh Nagar. Learned counsel would read Annexure
4, para 3 to the objections filed by the informant, which
records that the threats were given by the wife of the
applicant on 23.07.2024. Interim anticipatory bail was
granted on 31.07.2024. Based on it, it is argued that the
averments of threats given after obtaining anticipatory bail
are per se not reliable.
6. Learned counsel for the informant would submit
that applicant under the assurance of marriage established
physical relations with her and now he has declined to
marry. He has married some other woman. It is argued that
the informant has conceived once, but Police is not
collecting evidence to establish that fact.
7. This Court cannot direct the Investigating Officer
to collect evidence in a particular manner. It is up to
Investigation Officer to investigate all the allegations that
are levelled against the accused.
8. Learned State counsel would submit that victim
has supported the prosecution case during investigation.
3
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court
is of the view that this is a case fit for anticipatory bail.
10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
11. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be
enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing a
personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to
it, the applicant shall also comply with the following
conditions:
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the
investigation.
(ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness in
any manner, whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without
prior permission of the concerned court.
(iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the
AO. The passport may only be returned by the
order of the court concerned. In case the
applicant does not have passport, he shall give an
undertaking to that effect to the AO.
(v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on
(i), (ii) & (iii) above.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
30.09.2024
Jitendra