HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1177 of 2024 Praveen Kumar ` ...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent Present:- Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the informant, through video conferencing. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Praveen Kumar seeks anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.3029 of 2019, State Vs. Praveen Kumar, arising out of FIR No.215 of 2018, under Sections 376 and 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the husband of the informant had died 5 years prior to the lodging of the FIR. She was working in a placement. She came in contact with the applicant. The applicant married her seven months prior to lodging of the FIR in the presence of the mother and daughter of the informant and her daughter, and had assured that after six months, he would perform court marriage. But he did not do so. 2 4. It is this FIR in which after investigation, chargesheet was submitted. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that during investigation, the arrest of the applicant was stayed by the Court. The applicant cooperated during investigation. When chargesheet was submitted, he filed an application for quashing of the criminal proceedings against him, in which stay was granted on 10.12.2019. The stay continued for a long. On 16.09.2021, the stay was vacated, but it was again continued on 06.12.2021, which continued uptil 08.08.2024. In the meanwhile, it is argued that the applicant had moved anticipatory bail application. 6. This factual narration is not disputed by learned counsel for the informant. He would submit that the applicant has been avoiding his presence in the court. After vacation of the interim order, the applicant ought to have surrendered to custody, which he did not. It is argued that in the C-482 proceedings, the interim order was vacated on 08.08.2024, but still, the applicant has not surrendered to custody. 7. Learned State Counsel would submit that the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) have already been completed against the applicant and he has been declared as an absconder and one witness has already been examined. 3 8. Generally, once a person is declared as an absconder and evidence is recorded in his absence, such person may not be entitled the concession of anticipatory bail. But then, the fact and circumstances are to be seen. In the instant case, the factual narration is as follows: (i) During investigation, the applicant was not arrested and he cooperated during investigation; (ii) When chargesheet was filed, it was challenged and stay was granted on 10.12.2019, which was discontinued on 06.09.2021, but stay was again made operative on 20.12.2021. In the meanwhile, the trial court observed that the applicant is not appearing before the court, therefore, evidence of one witness was recorded in his absence on 27.11.2021. (iii) Between 06.09.2021 and 08.12.2021, on four dates, those proceedings had been undertaken by the trial court. The stay again continued uptil 08.08.2024. In the meanwhile, anticipatory bail was filed. 9. It is not a case of custodial interrogation. Processes were issued against the applicant for the brief period when stay was not in operation. That period was for three months only, as stated hereinbefore. Having considered this and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicants should be granted 4 anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever. (ii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned. (iii) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the court concerned. The passports 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 court concerned. (iv) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i) and (ii) above. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.02.2025 Ravi Bisht