2025:UHC:2750 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2282 of 2024 Sanjay ..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned AGA and Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J The present bail application has been moved under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of the applicant, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 398 of 2024, registered at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 376(2)(n), and 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The applicant has been in custody since 07.09.2024. His previous bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 19.09.2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the State, and perused the material available on record. 3. The FIR dated 03.08.2024 alleges that the Complainant, employed as a security guard in a private company, came into contact with the applicant, leading to a live-in relationship. It is alleged that the applicant misled her with the promise of marriage, executed a purported marriage certificate on stamp paper, and later physically assaulted her upon learning of her pregnancy, compelling 1 2025:UHC:2750 her to undergo an abortion. It is also alleged that he abused her using caste-based slurs. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the relationship was consensual and continued from 2019 despite the Complainant being aware that the applicant was a married man. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after a delay of nearly five years, which undermines the credibility of the allegations and indicates that the relationship was neither non-consensual nor induced by fraud. 5. It is further contended that the allegations under the SC/ST Act appear exaggerated, as there are no independent witnesses to the purported caste-based remarks, and the FIR does not show any utterance in a public view, which is essential for the invocation of the said provisions. 6. The medical record contradicts the allegation that the Complainant was forced to abort. Dr. Yasmeen’s statement records that the Complainant opted for the abortion on her own volition, stating that she did not want to continue with the pregnancy. 7. The live-in relationship persisted even after the first abortion and the Complainant again became pregnant, which, in the opinion of this Court, reinforces the voluntary and consensual nature of the relationship. 8. The delay of five years in lodging the FIR also weighs heavily against the prosecution at this stage. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored that where parties have been in a consensual relationship over a prolonged period, and allegations of rape arise 2 2025:UHC:2750 only upon the breakdown of such relationship or non-fulfilment of a promise to marry, the same must be scrutinised with circumspection. In the present case, the delay and the nature of the continued association raise substantial doubts about the complainant’s version at this stage. 9. It is also noted that the essential ingredients constituting an offence under the SC/ST Act do not appear to be satisfied in the present matter. There is neither a public view allegation nor independent corroboration of caste-based slurs, though the final adjudication shall rest with the learned trial court. 10. The applicant has undergone incarceration since 07.09.2024. The trial is likely to take time, and the charge sheet has been filed. There is no material to suggest that the applicant may abscond or influence the course of justice if released on bail. 11. Pre-trial detention, particularly in cases where material contradictions exist and the complainant’s conduct casts doubts on the prosecution's case, must not be carried out mechanically. Article 21 of the Constitution enshrines the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial, which must guide the exercise of judicial discretion in such matters. ORDER 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds it to be a fit case for the grant of bail. 13. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Sanjay be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- 3 2025:UHC:2750 (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and shall appear before the trial court on all dates fixed. (ii) In case of breach of any of the conditions, the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail. 14. Order accordingly. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 03.04.2025 NR 4 NITESH RAWAT Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Date: 2025.04.16 14:50:51 +05'30'