Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/232/2018 on 25 February, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
25.02.2022 Bail Application No. 1444 of 208
In
CRLA No. 232 of 2018
Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.
Mr. Devesh Upreti, the learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This is a Bail Application under Section 389 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
"the Cr.P.C."). The appellant, namely Dilbagh Singh,
has prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail. The appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for
short "the IPC") and sentenced to ten years' rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 60,000/-, and in
default of payment of fine to undergo further six
months' additional simple imprisonment. He has been
further convicted for the offence under Section 363
IPC, and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, and in
default of payment of fine to undergo further three
months' additional simple imprisonment . He has been
further convicted for the offence under Section 366
IPC, and sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, and in
default of payment of fine to undergo further three
months' additional simple imprisonment. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
It is apparent from the record that the appellant
has undergone more than 50% of the sentence
imposed. But, the most important aspect is that
neither the victim, nor her parents, have supported the
case of the prosecution. But, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) came to the
conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence,
and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt from the report of the SFSL, which
shows that the blood sample obtained from the half
knickers of the accused matched with the blood sample
obtained from half knickers the of the victim.
It is apparent from the record that the
prosecution has not established that the vaginal swab
was collected from the victim, and it was compared
with the blood and semen samples of the appellant.
In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
view that there is a subtle probability that this Criminal
Appeal will be allowed in the ultimate analysis.
Moreover, the appellant is a permanent resident of
Gokul Nagri, Bilaspur, Thana-Bilaspur, District Rampur,
Uttar Pradesh. So, there is no reasonable
apprehension of his absconding from the process of
justice. There is no allegation on behalf of the
prosecution that the appellant will tamper with the
prosecution evidence, if he is released on bail.
Hence, the Bail Application No. 1444 of 2018 is
allowed. The sentence awarded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO),
Udham Singh Nagar vide judgment and order dated
28.05.2018
in Session Trial No. 104 of 2017 is hereby
suspended.
The appellant shall be released on bail, on such
terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO), Udham Singh Nagar in the aforesaid case.
Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to
the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.
(S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)
25.02.2022
Rahul
