Akeel vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4083 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2020

Akeel                                          ........Appellant

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand                         ........Respondent
Present:-
      Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate for the appellant.
      Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Appellant Akeel has preferred an appeal

against the judgment and orders dated

26.11.2020/27.11.2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial

No. 08 of 2018, State vs. Akeel, by the court of Special

Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge/FTC

Haldwani, District Nainital. By the impugned judgement

and orders, the appellant has been convicted under

Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) IPC and Section 5/6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. This is the second bail application. The first

bail application has already rejected on 15.03.2022.

Thereafter, the appellant sought short term bail on the

ground of his illness.

3. Earlier a report from the panel of doctors was

received from Dr. Susheela Tiwari Government Hospital,

Haldwani, District Nainital. According to it, the applicant

is suffering with "Tumor" as per MRI Head Report, for

which, he is under treatment from Neuro Surgery

Department. Report also records that the applicant is also

suffering "Cholestasis" and for which, surgery may be

considered only after anaesthesia clearance. The

applicant has been referred to AIIMS Delhi or AIIMS

Rishikesh by the doctors.

4. Now again, appellant has sought bail. A report

has been sought from jail. It is reported that the appellant

was got examined at AIIMS Delhi on 24.11.2022. The

doctor examined CEMRI SELLA REGION and suggested

brain surgery. Central Jail also reports that since

computer server of AIIMS Delhi were not properly working

on the aforesaid date, therefore, surgery could not be

done.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that appellant is seriously unwell. He should be

released on bail, so that he may get himself treated.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that

appellant is really unwell.

7. Having considered the medical condition and

the nature of illness, with which the appellant is

suffering, this Court is of the view that during pendency

of this appeal, the sentence appealed against by the

appellant should be suspended and he should be released

on bail.

8. The bail application (IA No. 7/2022) is allowed.

9. The sentence, appealed against, by the

appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this

appeal. Let the appellant be released on bail, on his

executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

court concerned.

10. List this matter on 31.03.2023.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.12.2022 AK