2025:UHC:2849 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 17th April, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2573 of 2024 Tej Ram Mourya …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the applicant, Tej Ram Maurya S/o Nand Ram, R/o Village Patbara, P.S. Baheri, District Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, who is currently in judicial custody since September 13, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 168 of 2024, registered at Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 127(2), 351(2), and 64(1) of the BNS. The bail application follows the rejection of the applicant's previous bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated December 11, 2024. 2. The case of the State, as outlined in the FIR and the counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Rajni Goswami, is that on 1 2025:UHC:2849 September 6, 2024, the applicant allegedly enticed the victim, called her to Kichha, and subsequently took her to Bareilly, where he kept her as his wife in a rented accommodation. It is further alleged that the applicant confined the victim, forcibly maintained a physical relationship with her, and threatened to kill her if she informed anyone about her situation. The State contends that the victim was confined for 5-6 days until September 11, 2024, when she managed to call her brother using the applicant's phone while he was out to get food. Subsequently, she escaped to Izzatnagar Railway Station in Bareilly, where she met her brother and the police. 3. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records 4. Per the counter affidavit, a missing person report was filed by the victim's father on September 7, 2024, and following the recovery of the victim, an FIR was registered on September 13, 2024. The State has submitted that after the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under the aforementioned sections. The State has also placed on record the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, her medical examination report, the statement of the examining doctor, and the statements of other witnesses, including the victim's father and brother. 5. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel, has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has argued that there is a significant delay in the filing 2 2025:UHC:2849 of the FIR, which was registered on September 13, 2024, while the alleged incident took place on September 6, 2024, and the victim had returned home by September 11, 2024. The learned counsel has further contended that there are no independent witnesses to corroborate the State's case, and the alleged incident appears implausible given that the applicant is a resident of another state. 6. A crucial submission made by the applicant's counsel is that both the applicant and the victim are majors, and they went together of their own free will and consent. According to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, they lived in a hotel in Bareilly as husband and wife, and the victim even wore sindur (vermilion), indicating a consensual relationship. The counsel has emphasised that the applicant has no previous criminal record, voluntarily surrendered to the police on September 13, 2024, and has been in judicial custody since then. Moreover, the applicant is prepared to furnish adequate sureties, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence. 7. The learned Assistant District Government Advocate, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the bail application, emphasising the grave nature of the offences alleged against the applicant. He has submitted that the victim's statements clearly indicate that she was confined against her will and subjected to forced physical relations under the threat of death. The State has argued that since the applicant is a resident of another state, there is a significant risk of his evading the judicial process if released on bail. 3 2025:UHC:2849 8. Upon careful consideration of the material on record and the submissions advanced by both parties, this Court finds that the case warrants the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of granting bail. 9. The Court observes that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 06.09.2024 at midnight, whereas the First Information Report (FIR) was registered only on 13.09.2024, a delay of seven days. Even though the victim returned home on 11.09.2024, the FIR was lodged two days later. The prosecution has not furnished a satisfactory explanation for this delay, which raises doubts regarding the immediacy and spontaneity of the complaint. In criminal jurisprudence, especially in offences of a serious nature, delay in lodging the FIR without adequate justification affects the credibility of the prosecution's case at the threshold. 10. It is further evident from the affidavits and supporting documents that both the applicant and the victim are adults. It has been stated that they lived together in Bareilly for several days, where the victim presented herself as the applicant's wife and wore symbols of matrimony such as sindur. During this period, she neither attempted to escape nor reported any objection or distress to any third party or authority. 11. These circumstances prima facie suggest that the relationship may have been consensual in nature. 12. This Court also takes note of the inconsistencies present in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A 4 2025:UHC:2849 specific contradiction is evident regarding a material fact, whether the door of the rented room was closed by the applicant or by the victim herself. 13. In her initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she used to close the door from inside. However, in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she states that the applicant had locked the room from outside, which creates an apparent discrepancy in the narrative of forced confinement. 14. This Court also finds it relevant to consider a specific inconsistency between the oral allegations of the victim and the objective medical evidence available on record. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the victim has alleged that the applicant had physically assaulted her by biting her. However, a careful examination of the medical examination report of the victim reveals that no such injury, bite mark or otherwise, has been noted by the examining medical officer. 15. Moreover, it is not the prosecution's case that the applicant was arrested during the investigation; instead, it is admitted that he voluntarily surrendered before the police on 13.09.2024. This conduct indicates his willingness to submit to the process of law and mitigates any apprehension of him being a flight risk. The investigation has concluded, and a chargesheet has already been filed, which diminishes the necessity of further custodial detention. 16. Having considered the rival submissions, the 5 2025:UHC:2849 material available on record and the nature of the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of bail. The delay in lodging the FIR, the consensual nature of the relationship, the inconsistencies in the victim's statements and the absence of corroboration in medical evidence all cumulatively support the conclusion that custodial detention of the applicant is not necessary at this stage. 17. Let the applicant, Tej Ram Maurya, son of Nand Ram, resident of Village Patbara, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, be released on bail in connection with the case at hand, upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 18. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 17.04.2025 SB 6 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b 5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7 FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.23 11:54:46 +05'30'