CRLA/225/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1830 UK

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


                      24TH JUNE, 2022

                Bail Application No.01 of 2022
                             In
              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 225 of 2022


Between:

Munne Khan.                                                ...Appellant

and

State of Uttarakhand.                                 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant        : Mr. Vikas Anand.

Counsel for the State            : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,
                                   learned A.G.A. assisted
                                   by Mr. Pramod Tiwari,
                                   learned Brief Holder for
                                   the State.

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the

appellant-Munne Khan against the judgment dated

25.05.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge/FTSC, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial

No.80 of 2019, "State vs. Munne Khan", whereby, the

appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years

along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, he has been

convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for the period of two years along with a fine

of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Vikas Anand, the learned counsel for

the appellant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A.

assisted by Mr. Pramod Tiwari, the learned Brief Holder for

the State.

3. Admit.

4. Heard on the Bail Application No.1 of 2022.

5. Mr. Vikas Anand, the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant, submitted that the appellant has been

falsely implicated in this matter; he has no criminal

history; there are substantial doubt about the conviction;

the appellant was on bail during the trial and the

conditions of bail were neither misused nor violated by the

appellant, and, the appellant is on interim bail.

6. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A. 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 bail were neither misused nor

violated by the appellant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

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

Munne Khan, provided he submits a personal bond and

two reliable sureties of the same amount to the

satisfaction of the court concerned.

__________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 24th June, 2022 Neha