"State Of Uttarakhand vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 2464 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                   04TH AUGUST, 2022

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.298 of 2022


Between:

Sanjay Kashyap.                               .....Appellant

and

State of Uttarakhand.                         ...Respondent


Counsel for the Appellant :     Mr. Ramji Shrivastava,
                                learned counsel.
Counsel for the State         : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,
                                learned A.G.A.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by

the appellant, namely, Sanjay Kashyap, against the

judgment dated 18.07.2022/20.07.2022, passed by the

Special Judge, (POCSO Act)/ District and Sessions Judge,

Tehri Garhwal in Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 2020,

"State of Uttarakhand vs. Krishna @ Basu and Another",

whereby the appellant-Sanjay Kashyap has been convicted

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of

one year along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 504 of IPC; he has been

convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a

period of one year along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, and, he has

been further convicted and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of

Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 509

of IPC. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, the learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the

learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Admit.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the

Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2022).

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this

matter; there are material contradictions in the evidence

of the prosecution's witnesses; the appellant is a

permanent resident of District Tehri Garhwal; during the

trial he was on bail and the conditions of the bail were

neither misused nor violated by him, and, the appellant is

on interim bail. The learned counsel appearing for the

appellant requested two months time to deposit the fine,

as imposed by the learned trial court.

6. The learned counsel for the State opposed the

bail application orally. However, he fairly conceded that

the appellant was on bail during the trial and the

conditions of the bail were not misused.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant,

namely, Sanjay Kashyap, provided he submit his personal

bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount to

the satisfaction of the court concerned.

8. List this case on 17.10.2022.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 04.08.2022 Neha