Bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a case involving rape on false promise of marriage, forced abortion and caste-based abuse. The court noted the prolonged consensual relationship, five-year FIR delay, medical record contradicting coerced abortion, absence of public-view caste remarks, and custody since September 2024, and allowed bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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.
1
2025:UHC:2750
her to undergo an abortion. It is also alleged that he abused her using caste-based slurs.
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.
ORDER
3
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted bail in a rape case arising from an alleged live-in relationship with promise of marriage, delayed FIR, and SC/ST Act allegations.
Whether the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie satisfied.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶8
(2019) 9 SCC 608 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Sanjay
State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
