Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/370/2020 on 21 September, 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
21st September, 2021
Bail Application (CRMA No.4360 of 2020)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 2020
Between:
Smt. Sangeeta alias Sanjeeta ...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the : Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned
appellant. Senior Advocate (Amicus
Curiae).
Counsel for the : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
respondent. Advocate General with Mr.
Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
The Court made the following:
ORDER : (per Hon'ble Justice Sri Alok Kumar Verma)
This application (CRMA No. 4360 of 2020) is filed on
behalf of the appellant Sangeeta alias Sanjeeta for bail in this
appeal.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2020, passed by
the learned Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar, whereby, the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years along with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 363 of
IPC; she has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
366A of IPC; she has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years along
with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2) of IPC; she has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
20 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 376D of IPC read with Section 120B
of IPC; she has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
2
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years along with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 5/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as, ' the Act, 2012') and she has been
further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years along with a fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the
Act, 2012. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, the learned Senior Advocate
(Amicus Curiae), submitted that the appellant cannot be
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376D of
IPC; she has been falsely implicated and she is in custody
since 24.10.2017.
5. Per contra, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State, opposed the bail application
and submitted that the appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 376 D with the aid of Section
120B of IPC. She was the main accused. The victim, aged
about 13 years, clearly deposed that two co-accused persons
raped her. The present appellant had made a video of the said
incident. On the basis of that video, the present appellant used
3
to threaten her. Showing the fear that video, the co-accused
persons used to rape her at the behest of the appellant. All the
prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution.
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 is convicted in
a serious offence, therefore, it is clear that an order of bail
cannot be granted in arbitrary or fanciful manner.
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. Penetrative 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.
4
9. A ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (N.C.T.) of
Delhi and another, [2018 (1) CCSC 117] is that in serious
crimes, the mere fact that the appellant is in custody for more
than one year, may not be a relevant consideration to release
the appellant on bail.
10. 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 merits 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.
11. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the
case, there is no good ground to release the appellant,
involved in this heinous crime, on bail. The bail application is
rejected accordingly.
12. 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
5
allowed or not. The said observations shall not effect the merit
of this appeal.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 21st September, 2021
JKJ/Mamta
