Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/142/2022 on 20 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
20TH DECEMBER, 2022
Bail Application No. 1 of 2022
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.142 of 2022
Between:
Hari Dobal. .....Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal,
Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj,
Deputy Advocate General
assisted by Mrs. Shivangi
Gangwar, Brief Holder for
the State.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The present Criminal Appeal has been filed
against the judgment dated 29.04.2022, passed by the
District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli at Gopeshwar in
Sessions Trial No.10 of 2019, "State of Uttarakhand vs.
Hari Dobhal", whereby, the appellant-Hari Dobhal has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed
to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of
one year. The appellant has been further convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, and, in
default of payment of fine, he has been directed to
undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of
fifteen days. Both the sentences have been directed to
run concurrently.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Bail
Application (IA No.1 of 2022).
3. Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned counsel for the
appellant, submitted that according to the prosecution
case, the prosecutrix was raped by the appellant in a
house, which was under construction; however, no
external or internal injury was found on the body of the
prosecutrix during the medical examination; DNA report
does not support the prosecution case; there are material
contradictions in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses, therefore, there are substantial doubt regarding
the conviction; the appellant was on bail during the trial
and the conditions of bail were neither misused nor
violated by him; he is in service of India Army; he is a
permanent resident of District Chamoli, and, he has no
criminal history.
4. Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State, opposed the bail application.
However, he fairly conceded that the appellant was on bail
during the trial and the conditions of bail were neither
misused nor violated by him.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant,
namely, Hari Dobal, provided he submits his personal
bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned.
6. Bail Application is allowed accordingly.
7. List this Appeal on 10.04.2023 for final hearing.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 20.12.2022
Neha
