Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1951/2025 of NARAYANI DEVI ALIAS BONTI DEKA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 December 2025
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1951 of 2025 Narayani Devi alias Bonti Deka …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, AGA for the State. Hon’ble
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1951 of 2025 Narayani Devi alias Bonti Deka
…..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand
….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, AGA for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.297 of 2022, State Vs. Krishna Murari, in connection with Case Crime No.349 of 2022, under Sections 109, 376(2)(n) IPC, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. She has sought her release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The applicant was staying with the co-accused Krishna Murari in Haridwar. The victim was in Assam, who happens to be the daughter of the applicant. The victim joins her mother, the applicant at Haridwar. It is the case in the FIR that the co-accused raped the victim and he continued to do so. The victim revealed it to her mother, the applicant. She did not do anything and instead said that if she gets pregnant, she may get abortion. The FIR records that the victim was sent to Ghaziabad in some other family, etc.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no allegation against the applicant; the applicant did not abet the offence; the FIR per se records that the co-accused did rape the victim and this is what the victim has stated in court. It is a case for bail. He has referred to the statement of the victim recorded during trial to argue that according to the victim, the co- accused Krishna Murari spiked the drink of the victim and raped her. It is argued that it rules out the case of abetment.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that, in fact, the applicant was staying with the co-accused Krishna Murari and when the victim went to stay with the applicant, the co-accused raped her. He submits that, in fact, it is the applicant, who prompted the co-accused Krishna Murari to establish physical relations with her.
6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.
7. The victim herself has stated that once the co-accused Krishna Murari spiked her drink and raped her. Where is the question of abetment? This and many more questions will find answer during trial.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
19.12.2025 Sanjay