Uttarakhand High CourtBA1/592/2021 on 8 June, 2021Author:R.C. KhulbeBench:R.C. KhulbeOffice Notes,\n             reports, orders or\nSL.           proceedings or\n      Date                                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS\nNo             directions and\n             Registrar's order\n              with Signatures\n                                  BA1 No. 592 of 2021\n\n                                  Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for\n                                  the applicant.Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief\n                                  Holder for the State.Heard this matter through video\n                                  conferencing.Accused-Raja Ram Bijalwan, who is\n                                  in judicial custody in connection with\n                                  case crime no. 256 of 2019 undersections 376and506IPC, registered at\n                                  P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun has\n                                  sought his release on bail.As per the FIR, the informant/\n                                  victim came in contact with the present\n                                  accused through facebook and the\n                                  accused disclosed that he is employed in\n                                  Secretariat Dehradun. On 15.09.2017,\n                                  accused called the informant/ victim at\n                                  Mandakani Hotel, Dehradun on the\n                                  pretext of some discussion and forcibly\n                                  committed rape with her. Thereafter, he\n                                  started blackmailing the victim and again\n                                  called her in the same hotel on\n                                  08.10.2017. He took the victim in his\n                                  rented     room   at    Dharampur      and\n                                  committed rape. When the victim/\n                                  informant insisted the accused to marry\n                                  her, he refused and threatened her.It is argued by the learned counsel\n                                  for the accused that the accused has\n                                  falsely been implicated in the offence;\n                                  there was a friendship between the\n                                  accused and the informant; there was a\n                                  consensual sex between the parties.In support of his contention, learned\n                                  counsel placed reliance upon the\n judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in\nthe case ofPramod Suryabhan Pawar\nvs. State of Maharashtraand anr.,passed in CRLA No. 1165 of 2019wherein it is held that if there is no\nallegation to the effect that the promise\nto marry given to the informant was false\nfrom the very beginning, in that situation\nif any sexual intercourse was committed\nby the accused with the informant, the\naccused cannot be convicted undersection 376IPC. It is also submitted that\nthe informant was major. Accused is\nready to furnish the sureties.Per contra, learned State counsel\nopposed for bail.From the perusal of the FIR, it\nwould reveal that the accused called the\ninformant     at   Mandakini    Hotel   on\n15.09.2017 and committed rape with\nher. Again on 08.10.2017, the accused\ncalled the informant in the same hotel\nand again developed physical relations\nwith her forcibly. Thereafter, he took her\nat    his   rented   accommodation       at\nDharampur where he developed physical\nrelations with her by blackmailing her.\nWhen victim/informant insisted him to\nmarry her then the accused refused to do\nso. The victim was medically examined.\nAs per the medical report her hymen was\nfound torned. The statement of the\nvictim, undersection 164Cr.P.C. was\nrecorded wherein she repeated the\nincident as mentioned in the FIR.From the perusal of the FIR and the\nstatement of the victim, prima facie, it is\nclear that the accused committed rape\nwith the victim many times and when the\nvictim insisted the accused to marry her\nhe refused and threatened her. It is clear\nthat when the accused committed rape\n with the informant at that time there was\nno intention of the accused to marry the\ninformant while in the case ofPramod\nSuryabhan Pawar(supra) the accused\nmade     physical    relations   with     the\naggrieved on the pretext of the marriage.\nIt was a consensual sex while in the\npresent matter, there was no consensual\nsex.Looking into the gravity of the\noffence it is not a fit case for bail at this\nstage.The bail application is rejected\naccordingly.Pending application, if any, also\nstands disposed of.(R.C. Khulbe, J.)\n                          08.06.2021\nParul