Uttarakhand High Court
Manoj Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 July, 2021
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.289 of 2021
Manoj Bisht ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicant Manoj Bisht, is in judicial custody in FIR No.01 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376, 313, 328 IPC and Section 3(i) XII of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station - Pangla, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
3. FIR in the instant case was lodged by the victim herself, who was 23 years of age when FIR was lodged on 18.01.2021. According to the FIR, the applicant established forcibly physical relations with the victim under the pretext of marriage about one and a half years prior to the lodging of the FIR. On 04.01.2021, the applicant again took the victim with her and on 09.01.2021, he told that his family members are not accepting the victim in his family. Therefore, both would consume poison. After consuming the poison, the victim was admitted to the hospital and from there, she was referred to some other hospital and it is the allegation that on 13.01.2021, foetus of seven and a half months was aborted. There are allegations against the applicant and the co-accused as well.
24. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the relationship was consensual; the victim knew that the applicant was married, but the applicant is from General caste and the victim is a tribal and the customs permit second marriage between them; the provisions of Hindu law are as such not applicable to them. Learned counsel would submit that it is not the victim only, who consumed poison, but the applicant has also consumed the poison and he was also admitted in the hospital, where the victim was introduced as a wife of the applicant. It is argued that FIR has been falsely lodged based on legal advice.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that it is heinous offence. Under the pretext of marriage, the applicant established physical relations with the victim and when she became pregnant her foetus was aborted. It is argued that the applicant is already married and having a child and he established physical relations under the pretext of marriage.
6. This is stage of bail. Deeper analysis is always avoided at this stage unless it is necessary to appreciate the arguments. As per the FIR, the victim is a girl of 23 years of age. In her statement given under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the victim has stated the she befriended the applicant through Facebook for about one and a half years prior to the lodging of the FIR and they started talking to each other and once the applicant established physical relations with her and thereafter, he started blackmailing her. When the victim became pregnant, the applicant kept on assuring her to marriage, but he did not marry and then on 09.01.2021, both consumed poison saying that his family members are not accepting the victim.
7. How was the victim blackmailed? What the applicant has done? Learned counsel for the State would submit that there is no photograph etc. collected during investigation. In the month of January, 2021, according to the victim, she was seven and a half years pregnant. Why she did not report the matter earlier to anyone? Why was she submitting herself to the applicant? Was the relation consensual? The FIR itself records that the victim belongs to Scheduled Tribes category 3 and in her statement to IO, the victim tells that after consuming poison, she was hospitalized and she met wife and other family members of the applicant as well. If it was so, why the FIR was lodged on 18.01.2021, why quickly FIR was lodged?
8. The applicant has also filed the medical slips when both were admitted in a Government Hospital, Dharchula after consuming poison. It is records that even applicant was admitted on 09.01.2021 at 12:30 PM in the hospital as a suspected case of poisoning. The victim was also admitted in the hospital as a suspected case of poisoning and in the hospital slips she was shown as a wife of the applicant. Does it mean that the applicant really wanted to marry her? But, as told by the victim, since his family members were not accepting the victim in their family, they both decided to end their life. These all questions would fall for discussion and deliberation during trial.
9. Having considered all the aspects of this matter, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant, namely, Manoj Bisht be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
12. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and the same shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.
13. This bail order is to be forwarded to concerned Court as well as the concerned jail through e-mail also.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 19.07.2021 Sanjay