X vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The respondent no.2 (the accused) has been granted bail on 21.08.2024 in Case No.763 of 2024 (BA1 No.681 of 2024, Muzaffar Vs. State of Uttarakhand), in Case Crime No.0345 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Haridwar. By means of this application, the applicant-informant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent no.2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 04.05.2024, by deception, the accused took the applicant inside her house and raped her twice. When the father of the applicant wanted to report it to the police, the accused agreed to marry the applicant. On 07.05.2024, they were married. Thereafter, the accused took the applicant at Roshnabad and there he asked her to sign various papers. Subsequently, he told it to the applicant that he has divorced her.

Learned counsel for the applicant-informant would submit that the court below has wrongly granted bail to the accused. Fraud was played on the applicant by the accused. In order to save himself from the case of rape, the accused married the applicant on 07.05.2024, but, thereafter, by playing fraud on her, got the divorce papers signed on 25.05.2024.

Consideration for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are quite distinct. Bail once granted may not be cancelled on mere assertions. The matter needs to be individually examined.

The bail order in question is quite in detail. It records that after their marriage on 07.05.2024, there were documents to reveal that both the applicant and the accused had divorced each other by mutual consent, and such documents were placed at the time of hearing of the bail application. The court has also taken into consideration the fact that the applicant and accused both had already married once; chargesheet had already been filed.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court does not see it a fit case to make any intervention. There is no ground for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application deserves to be rejected.

The bail cancellation application is rejected.