Uttarakhand High Court
Mayank Sharma Alias Pandit vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2025
Mayank Sharma alias Pandit ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2025
Ved Prakash Alias Mohit Alias Golu ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both the appeals arise from the same Sessions Trial Number, they are heard together.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred against judgment and order dated 21/22.07.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.382 of 2020, State Vs. Ved Prakash alias Mohit and others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 328, 326(A), 457, 376(DA) IPC, and sentenced accordingly.
3. Heard.
4. These appeals have already been admitted. 2
5. List in due course for final hearing.
6. Heard on First Bail Applications (IA) No.1 of 2024
7. According to the prosecution case, in the intervening night of 19/20.08.2020, at 12:00, the appellants and two other persons entered into the house of the informant and raped his daughter.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Ved Prakash alias Mohit alias Golu submits that the entire prosecution case is false; the FIR is much delayed; the victim was taken to hospital next day in the morning; till then, FIR was not lodged; it is not established by the prosecution as to how the appellant- Ved Prakash alias Mohit alias Golu entered into the house of the informant when the house was bolted from inside. He would refer to the documents relating to the treatment of the victim to argue that in the subsequent medical prescriptions, the diagnose is recorded as suspected poisoning.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Mayank Sharma alias Pandit submits that it is a false case; the appellant is the driver of the uncle of the victim; it is he, who took the victim to hospital; he has been falsely implicated due to some money transactions between the parties.
10. Learned State Counsel submits that there were in all four persons, who entered into the house of the informant and raped his daughter, but she could identify two of them, who are the appellants, as their masks had slipped; the victim has supported the prosecution case; she was taken to hospital; doctors have supported the case; there are other witnesses, who have also supported the prosecution case. 3
11. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
12. The victim has stated as to how the incident took place when she was raped by four persons. She became unconscious. Next morning, she revealed the incident to her family members. Her father, mother and others have supported the case. There are medical prescriptions, which record that the victim was not in her senses. She was unconscious when for the first time she was taken to hospital. There were injuries on her person.
13. Having considered, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the appellants to bail. Accordingly, the bail applications deserve to be rejected.
14. The bail applications are rejected.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.03.2026 Ravi Bisht