Uttarakhand High Court
Aleem .........Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 2024
Aleem .........Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Akram Parvez, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2024
Ajruddin alias Arju .........Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........... Respondent
Present : Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani. J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both these appeals arise from a common judgment and order, they are heard together.
2. Instant Criminal Appeals are preferred by the appellants Aleem and Ajruddin alias Arju, against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 and 14.08.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.17 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand vs. Aleem and another, by the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. By it, the appellant Aleem and 2 Ajruddin alias Arju have been convicted under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-DA IPC and Sections 5(g)(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act") and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the SC/ST Act") respectively and sentenced under Sections 363, 366-A IPC, Sections 5(g)(l)/6 of the Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants Aleem and Ajruddin alias Arju seek bail during pendency of these appeals.
3. Heard on Bail Applications.
4. The victim left her home on 17.01.2022, but she did not return and on the next day the FIR was lodged. Subsequently, it was the case of the prosecution that the victim and the appellant Aleem were in relationship; the appellant Aleem established physical relations with the victim and one day i.e. on 17.01.2022, he called the victim in his home, established physical relations with her and, thereafter, called the appellant Ajruddin alias Arju, who also established physical relations with the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during trial, the victim has not stated anything about the appellant Ajruddin alias Arju for establishing any physical relations. With regard to the appellant Aleem, she has stated that she was in friendship with him. It is also argued that, in fact, in Forensic Science Laboratory Report, there were mix DNA of both the appellants in the pubic hair of the victim, but the victim has not 3 stated anything against the appellant Ajruddin alias Arju. Hence, it is argued that these are the cases fit for bail.
6. Learned State Counsel does not dispute these facts, but she submits that the Forensic Science Laboratory Report supports the prosecution case.
7. 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.
8. The victim has stated that she was in relationship with the appellant Aleem and in so far as the appellant Ajruddin alias Arju is concerned, she has not stated anything against him in her examination before the court with regard to establishing physical relations with the victim.
9. Having considered this and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that it is a case, in which, the execution of sentence should be suspended and the applicants/appellants be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail applications are allowed.
11. The execution of sentence, which is under challenge in these appeals shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
4
12. Let the applicants/appellants be released on bail, during pendency of the appeals on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
13. List in due course.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.02.2026 Sanjay