Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1875/2025 on 20 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1147
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1875/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Abhishek Singh Rawat, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Applicant – Mustafa, who is in
judicial custody in connection with Case
Crime/F.I.R. No. 166 of 2025, registered
under Sections 376 of I.P.C. and 351(3),
352 of B.N.S., at Police Station Sitarganj
District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought
his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the F.I.R. was lodged
alleging that the applicant established
physical relations with the complainant
on the false promise of marriage. During
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet under Section
376 I.P.C. and Sections 351(3) and 352
B.N.S.
6. It is contended that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely
implicated. As per the F.I.R. itself, the
applicant and the complainant were
known to each other for the last about
six to seven years; that, both are major
as the applicant is aged about 26 years
and the complainant about 21 years. It
is submitted that any relationship
between them was consensual; that, yhe
F.I.R. was allegedly lodged only after the
2026:UHC:1147
applicant’s engagement had been fixed
elsewhere, and it is further submitted
that the said engagement was also
broken subsequent to the lodging of the
F.I.R. at the instance of the complainant.
7. It is further submitted that the
Investigating Officer has indicated that
the alleged offence under Section 376
I.P.C. pertains to a period prior to
enforcement of the B.N.S., whereas the
alleged offences under Sections 351(3)
and 352 B.N.S. relate to the subsequent
period.
8. Learned counsel also submits that
a compromise deed was executed
between the parties, wherein it was
stated that both were major, were in a
friendly relationship and used to talk on
phone. It is stated that although the
applicant had promised to marry the
complainant, he later refused, leading to
lodging of the F.I.R. It is further alleged
that the matter was settled in the
presence of respectable persons of
society and that a sum of ₹90,000/- was
paid to the complainant. A copy of the
compromise was also submitted at
Kotwali Sitarganj.
9. It is argued that the applicant is a
permanent resident of District Udham
Singh Nagar and there is no likelihood of
his absconding; that, the charge-sheet
has already been filed; therefore, there is
no possibility of tampering with evidence;
that, the applicant is in custody since
21.07.2025; that, his bail application
was rejected by the court below vide
order dated 15.09.2025. It is submitted
that the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude and
prolonged incarceration would adversely
affect the future of the applicant.
2026:UHC:1147
10. Per contra, learned State counsel
has opposed the bail application on the
ground that serious allegations have
been made against the applicant.
However, he does not dispute that the
applicant is in custody since 21.07.2025
and that the earlier bail application was
rejected on 15.09.2025.
11. Upon consideration of the rival
submissions and perusal of the record,
this Court finds that the F.I.R. itself
reflects a long-standing relationship
between the parties extending over
several years. At this stage, there is no
clear material to prima facie show that
the alleged promise of marriage was false
from the very beginning so as to negate
consent. The record presently indicates
that the relationship was between two
consenting adults; that, whether the
subsequent refusal to marry constitutes
an offence is a matter to be examined
during trial on the basis of evidence.
12. Considering the nature of
allegations, the period of custody, filing
of charge-sheet, absence of criminal
history brought on record, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court is of the view that
the applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail.
13. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
14. Let the applicant be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond along with
two reliable sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
20.02.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:1147
