Uttarakhand High Court
Satendra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2023)
In
Criminal Appeal No.449 of 2023
Satendra ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy A.G. for the State.
Coram:Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2023, passed in Special Session Trial No.04 of 2019, State Vs. Satendra, by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/FTSC (POCSO), Dehradun. By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant seeks bail in this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 30.08.2018, the appellant enticed the victim, a young girl and he kept the victim with him for many weeks before she could have been recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant and the victim, both were in a romantic relationship. The age 2 of the appellant was 20 years at the time of incident. They solemnized their marriage and when the family members extended threat to them, they filed a writ petition for protection in the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.31072 of 2018, Smt. Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr ("the writ petition"). In the writ petition on 20.09.2018, the Court had provided protection to them.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact, in the Aadhar Card of the victim, the age is recorded as 20 years, i.e. what is recorded in the order of the writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
6. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim was minor. She was not 20 years of age. She admits that the writ petition was filed by the victim and the appellant in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for protection. She referred to para 38 of the impugned judgment to argue that the Court in the impugned judgment it is recorded that the Aadhar Card was forged.
7. In the order of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in that writ petition, no such observation is made that the Aadhar Card was forged.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
3
11. The appellant be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
12. List in due course.
1 (Siddartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.02.2026 17.02.2026 RS