Forged photos, fake SSB uniform: Uttarakhand High Court denies bail to ‘corporal’ in marriage fraud case

Justice Ashish Naithani heard the matter on April 15.

The order added that firstly, the petitioner has established physical relations with the complainant after impersonating himself as a corporal of the SSB, he took the Complainant on the pretext of making her sightseeing of Nainital, took her to Nainital, and forcefully took advantage of her vulnerability, cohabited with her.

Case of Impersonation, rape, and extortion

According to the prosecution, the petitioner approached the complainant’s parents in 2021 and brought a proposal of marriage with the complainant, impersonating himself as an SSB Corporal, and boosted his position with a forged photo that the petitioner was receiving an award from the DIG on Facebook and on his mobile.

Accordingly, the petitioner took hold of the complainant’s parents and gained their confidence that he was a government servant in the SSB. Considering the petitioner as a government servant, an engagement was solemnised between the complainant (survivor) and the petitioner on September 7, 2022.

Taking advantage of the said engagement, the petitioner started extorting money from the complainant on one pretext or another, and with the pretext of taking the complainant to Nainital for sightseeing, he took her to a hotel and forcefully established physical relations with the complainant.

Learning the same, the parents of the complainant tried to approach the petitioner for marriage with their daughter, but the petitioner somehow evaded with the excuse that he was not getting leave.

Arguments of parties

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Yogesh Pant submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present matter and he has no criminal history or antecedents of this kind.
• He further argued that the petitioner came into contact with the complainant through an online social app, and that is how they became friends and decided to marry each other, which resulted in their engagement in September 2022.
• He stated that in between, there arose some dispute between the complainant and the petitioner, which resulted in falsely implicating the petitioner in the present matter”, he stated.
• He contended that the charge-sheet has been submitted, and cognisance has been taken, and there is no need for custodial interrogation as such, and thus, it is requested that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Prosecution’s case

• Representing the state, advocate Vikash Uniyal opposed all the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s advocate and stated that the petitioner has tarnished the reputation and mental state of the complainant, with whom he sexually exploited and extorted money with undue coercion.
• He argued that the petitioner impersonated himself as an SSB Corporal and to mask his impersonation, he showed the complainant and her parents a forged photograph completely morphed on Facebook and the mobile, where he is shown receiving an award from the DIG of the SSB.

• He submitted that by falsely impersonating himself as a corporal in uniform, he managed to get an engagement solemnised with the complainant.
• And later, with these false relations, which were totally based on false grounds, he extorted money from the complainant and also physically exploited her by committing physical relations, and it was contended that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

Court’s ruling

• This court is of the view that the grounds for bail are not found sufficient.
• If, in case the Applicant is enlarged on bail, he may pose a threat to the Complainant and further may try to apply coercive measures in subduing her and adversely affect the witnesses in the present matter.
• If, in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may pose a threat to the complainant and further may try to apply coercive measures in subduing her and adversely affect the witnesses in the present matter.