Uttarakhand High Court
Yaseen vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
15th October, 2022
SECOND BAIL APPLICATION I.A. No.2232 of 2022
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.428 of 2015
Yaseen ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Deepa Arya, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned
Deputy Advocate General for the
State.
Corum: Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. (Oral)
The present Second Bail Application has been
received from District Jail Haridwar. The First Bail Application
was rejected on 24.07.2017.
2. The instant Appeal has been filed against the
judgment dated 10.12.2015/11.12.2015, passed by the
learned FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO,
Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.90 of 2015,
"State Vs. Yaseen", by which, the appellant has been convicted
for the offence under Section 376 (2) IPC, Section 366 IPC,
and for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short
"Act, 2012"), and in view of Section 42 of the said Act, 2012,
he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) IPC,
along with a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine,
he has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment
for a period of six months; he has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a
fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
366 of IPC, and in default, he has been directed to undergo
additional simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Ms. Deepa Arya, learned counsel for the appellant.
submitted that there are material contradictions in the
statement of the prosecution's witnesses; the appellant is in
custody since 10.12.2015; at present, the age of the appellant
is 72 years; he was on bail during the trial and the conditions
of bail were neither violated nor misused by him.
4. Learned Counsel 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 violated nor misused by him.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant-Yaseen. The
appellant is released on bail, provided he submits a personal
bond and two reliable sureties of the same amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. The appellant is
directed to observe the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall maintain peace and tranquility
during the pendency of the appeal.
(ii) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case.
6. The Second Bail Application (IA No.2232 of 2022), is
disposed of accordingly.
____________________
Sharad Kumar Shamra, J.
___________________
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Dt: 15th October, 2022
NR/
