2025:UHC:9264 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1849 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Budhlakoti, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.0022 of 2025, under Section 376 & 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gopeshwar, District Chamoli. 3. An F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant alleging therein that the applicant and the complainant were in a relationship since the year 2022 and their relationship continued till the end of December, 2023. Thereafter, certain differences arose between them. It is further alleged that the applicant used to demand obscene and nude photographs from the complainant and, upon her refusal to send the same, he stopped communicating with her, which caused her mental distress. It is also alleged that the applicant, on the pretext of marrying the complainant, established physical relations with her. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case; that he has no previous criminal antecedents and is languishing in custody since 23.09.2025. It is further submitted that both the complainant and the applicant are major, aged about 25 2025:UHC:9264 years and 27 years respectively, and were fully aware of the nature and consequences of their consensual acts. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein it has been held that consensual physical relations between two adults, in the absence of any fraudulent or mala fide intention at the inception of the relationship, would not amount to rape merely because the promise of marriage was not ultimately fulfilled. It is contended that in the present case, there is no material to suggest that the alleged promise of marriage was false from the very inception. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that both the parties are majors and that the applicant has no prior criminal history. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of allegations, the consensual relationship between two adults, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further detention during the pendency of trial. 7. The bail application is allowed. 2025:UHC:9264 8. Let the applicant, namely, Vipin Kandari be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 15.10.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7 393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446 351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.10.15 17:28:26 +05'30'