Uttarakhand High Court
Mustkim vs State Of Uttarakhand on 21 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 2022
With
Bail Application (IA) No. 2 of 2022
Mustkim ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2022
Taiyyab ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, along with Mr. Rakesh
Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State
Coram : Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2022, passed in
Sessions Trial No. 38 of 208, State Vs. Taiyyab & others, by
the court of Fast Track Special Court/Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Dehradun, by which, the appellant has been
convicted under Section 376 (d) IPC and sentenced to 20
years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 40,000/-
with some other stipulations. The appellant seeks bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. The victim was found missing from her house
from 22.11.2017. On 23.11.2017, a missing report was
lodged. Subsequently, the victim was recovered who revealed
that it is the con-convict Taiyyab, who took her forcibly on a
motorcycle, and confined her in a room and there the co-
convict Taiyyab raped her on multiple occasions. The
appellant and one more person also raped her on multiple
occasions.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in
fact the main allegations are against co-convict Taiyyab, with
whom the victim visited Piran Kaliyar. The victim, on her
own, went along with co-convict Taiyyab. The victim stayed
at Kaliyar as husband and wife in an accommodation
provided by PW6 Smt. Bano.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has
categorically supported the prosecution case. She was
forcibly taken by co-convict Taiyyab. She was confined in the
room where she was raped by co-convict Taiyyab as well as
the appellant and one more person.
6. It is admitted that the distance from the place from
where the victim joined the company of co-convict Taiyyab to
the place where she was confined, is more than 154 km. It is
admitted that the victim, at no point of time did raise any
alarm. PW6 Smt. Bano, in her statement has categorically
stated that the victim along with co-convict Taiyyab took a
room on rent and they introduced themselves as husband
and wife. This appeal is pending since 2020.
7. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of
the view that bail application of the appellant Mustkin
deserves to be allowed.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. The operation and execution of sentence, appealed
against, qua the appellant Mustkin shall remain suspended
during pendency of this appeal. Let the appellant be released
on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction
of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
21.02.2023
Mahinder
