Vijay vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3525 UK

                                     1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                       AT NAINITAL

                 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
                 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                          4th November, 2022

                Second Bail Application (IA No.4072 2022)
                                    In
                      Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2019

     Between:

     Vijay                                               ...Appellant
                                                          (In jail)

     Vs.

     State of Uttarakhand.                              ...Respondent



     Counsel for the Appellant      : Pushpa Joshi, Senior
                                      Advocate assisted by Mrs.
                                      Chetna Latwal,

     Counsel for the State/         : Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj,
     Respondent                       Deputy Advocate General
                                      assisted by Mr. B.S.
                                      Thind, Brief Holder for
                                      the State.

     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. (Oral)

Heard Senior Advocate Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, assisted by Mrs. Chetna Latwal, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General on the present second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 16.03.2020 as not pressed.

2. The present bail application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2019/08.05.2019 passed by

the learned FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No.87 of 2019, State vs. Vijay, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC); he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short POCSO). In view of Section 42 of the said Act, 2012, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo for imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- for the offences under Section 6 of the said Act of 2002.

3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant, the son of the brother-in-law of the brother of the victim's father, had committed aggregated penetrative sexual assault on the victim, about 14 years of age, and due to the said sexual on the victim, gave birth to a baby.

4. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this matter; at the time of occurrence, the age of the victim was 14 years, whereas the age of the appellant was a little more than 18 years and he is languishing in jail since 2017.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence of the prosecutrix, medical report and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the appellant is a biological father of the baby of the victim. He further argued that the appellant as

DW1 has admitted in his evidence that he had made physical relations with the victim and the victim had become pregnant by his physical relation and he is father of the new born baby of the victim.

6. The prosecution witnesses, including the victim, have supported the case of the prosecution. At this stage, a detailed appreciation of evidence shall affect the merits of the case. If a strong primafacie ground is disclosed for certain doubt the conviction, it may be a ground to grant a bail. Such a ground does not appear in the present case.

7. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, there is not a good ground to release the appellant on bail. The second bail application is rejected accordingly.

       (ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.)    (SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.)
            04.11.2022                 04.11.2022

Arti