2025:UHC:2379 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Bail Application 1st No.860 of 2024 Aarif Khan ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned DAG for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the complainant. Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J ( Or al) This is a bail application filed by the applicant, Arif Khan, under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail in connection with FIR No. 614 of 2023, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offenses punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. 2. The state case, as per the FIR dated 06-12-2023, alleges that the applicant befriended the informant while she was seeking a loan for her medical shop. It is alleged that on the pretext of being unwell, the applicant invited the informant to his residence, where he offered her a cold drink, after which she felt dizzy and lost consciousness. The informant has further alleged that upon regaining consciousness, she found that the applicant had established physical relations with her against her will. When she later insisted on marriage, the applicant allegedly started blackmailing her, threatening to expose their relationship if she disclosed the matter to anyone. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is an unexplained and substantial delay in the registration of the FIR, which raises doubts regarding the veracity of the state’s case. It is further argued that the relationship between the applicant and the informant was consensual, and the allegations of coercion and blackmail are fabricated. 1 No medical evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim that the informant was drugged or rendered unconscious. 4. The applicant has no prior criminal history and has been in custody for a significant period. It is submitted that the investigation is substantially complete, and that further incarceration of the applicant serves no purpose. 5. The state, however, opposes the bail application, arguing that the allegations are of a grave nature and involve a serious offense against the informant. It is submitted that the applicant’s conduct indicates a deliberate attempt to deceive the informant. The state further contends that the release of the applicant on bail may lead to intimidation of the informant or tampering with evidence, which could hamper the trial process. 6. Upon considering the submissions of both parties and examining the case record, this Court notes that the delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained and raises doubts regarding the state's case. The nature of the relationship between the applicant and the informant appears to be personal, with disputes arising subsequently. There is no conclusive medical or forensic evidence produced to establish that the informant was drugged or coerced. Additionally, the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents, and there is no direct evidence suggesting that he poses a threat to the informant or to the fair conduct of the trial. 7. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed in following terms: 1. Accordingly, the applicant, Arif Khan, is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall furnish a personal bond with sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. 2. The applicant shall not establish any contact with the informant, either directly or indirectly, and shall not attempt to influence any witness. 3. There are certain chat records presented before the Court indicating that threats were made by the applicant’s brother on a couple of occasions. Any further instance of such threats shall also be a ground for cancellation of bail. 4. In the event of any violation of the above conditions, the state shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 26.03.2025 NR/