Uttarakhand High Court
3H August vs Unknown on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
BAIL APPLICATION No.1 of 2021
in
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.151 of 2021
03H AUGUST, 2021
Between:
Waseem ...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the : Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned
appellant. Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Priyanka Aggarwal learned
counsel.
Counsel for respondent. : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State.
The Court made the following:
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sri Alok Kumar Verma)
This application has been filed on behalf of the
appellant Waseem for bail in this appeal.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment
dated 16.03.2021/17.03.2021, passed by the learned
Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.
Haldwani, District Nainital in Special Sessions Trial No.19
2
of 2019, State vs. Waseem, whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of twenty years along with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 376 (3) of IPC; he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the
offence punishable under Sections 354-A of IPC; he has
been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 506
of IPC, and he has been further convicted and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five
years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under
Sections 9(l) (m)/10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act, 2012"). All the sentences are directed to run
concurrently.
3. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal, the learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned
Deputy Advocate General for the State.
4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior
Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant
3
has been implicated in this matter; the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against him and the victim is
declared hostile and she did not support the prosecution
case.
5. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned
Deputy Advocate General for the State, submitted that on
12.02.2019, the informant lodged an FIR alleging therein
that appellant-accused has committed rape with his seven
years minor girl child and threatened to kill her for
disclosing the matter. He further argued that the victim
has supported the prosecution case in her statement,
recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, as well as before the learned trial court
in her cross-examination. The learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State submitted that the prosecution has
examined as many as eight witnesses and all witnesses
have supported the prosecution case.
6. While dealing with an application for bail, there
is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for considering
why bail is being granted particularly when the appellant-
accused is convicted in a serious offence, therefore, it is
clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in arbitrary or
fanciful manner.
4
7. The Act, 2012 has been enacted to strengthen
the legal provisions for the protection of children from
sexual abuses and exploitations. Child abuse has serious
physical and psycho-social consequences which adversely
affect the health and overall well-being of a child. The
sexual assault is most heinous offence causing enormous
emotional and physical harm that can lost throughout child
victim's life time.
8. At the stage of considering the bail application, a
detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case has not to be
undertaken. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large
extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular
case.
9. In the present matter, the prosecution's
witnesses, including the victim, have supported the case of
the prosecution. At this stage, a detailed appreciation of
evidence shall affect the merit of the case. If a strong
prima facie ground is disclosed for substantial doubt about
the conviction, it may be ground to grant the bail. Such a
ground does not appear in the present case.
10. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of
the case, there is no good ground to release the appellant,
5
involved in this heinous crime, on bail. The bail application
is rejected accordingly.
11. It is clarified that the observations made
regarding the bail application are limited to the decision of
this bail application as to whether the bail application
should be allowed or not. The said observations shall not
effect the merit of this appeal.
____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 03th August, 2021
JKJ/NEHA
