Uttarakhand High Court
Vipin Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 July, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
2025:UHC:5667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
03rd JULY, 2025
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1183 OF 2024
Vipin Kumar ..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma,
Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, AGA
assisted by Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Brief Holder.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
This Application has been filed by the
applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime
No.228 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No.18 of 2020),
registered at Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District
Haridwar under Sections 376, 493, 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, “Act, 1989).
2. As per the First Information Report, the
victim met the applicant. The applicant is an Advocate.
He offered her a job in his chamber, where she started
working. Subsequently, the applicant came close to the
victim, assured her that he would marry her, took her
1
2025:UHC:5667
at various places, sexually exploited her and
subsequently declined to marry.
3. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal,
learned AGA for the State.
4. The evidence of the informant/ victim (PW1)
was recorded on 12.06.2025. She did not support the
case of the prosecution. She was declared hostile.
5. In the said circumstances, Mr. Pankaj Kumar
Sharma, Advocate, submitted that the offence under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 has not been made
out. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, passed in “Shajan Skaria vs. State
of Kerala and Another“, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2249.
6. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, further
submitted that the applicant was granted interim bail
on 07.01.2025, and, the conditions of the interim bail
have not been violated by him.
7. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, AGA for the State, has
opposed the anticipatory bail application. However, he
conceded that the prosecutrix has not supported the
case of the prosecution.
2
2025:UHC:5667
8. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right
and it should be curtailed only when it becomes
imperative according to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
9. Having heard the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case, without commenting on
the merits of the case, the present Anticipatory Bail
Application is allowed and the order dated 07.01.2025,
granting interim bail to the applicant, is made absolute.
It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant
Vipin Kumar, he shall be released on anticipatory bail
on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two
reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the
following conditions:-
(i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly
and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person,
acquainted with the facts of this case.
(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the
previous permission of the trial court.
10. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses
or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him,
the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court
3
2025:UHC:5667
for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt : 03.07.2025.
Pant/
4