Aamir Siddiqui Alias Harsh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 566 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2022
                               With
                Bail Application (IA) No. 2 of 2022


Aamir Siddiqui Alias Harsh                    ........Appellant

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand                        ........Respondent
Present:-
      Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
      Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy Advocate General, along with Ms.
      Meena Bisht, Brief Holder, for the State

Coram :   Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the

appellant Mohd. Aamir Siddiqui alias Harsh against the

judgment and order dated 12.11.2021/15.11.2021, passed

in Special Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2018, State Vs. Mohd.

Aamir Siddique @ Harsh by the court of Fast Track Special

Court/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun. By

it, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 386

& 506 of IPC read with 5/6 of The Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he has been sentenced

accordingly.

2. The appellant seeks bail.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

4. It is the prosecution case that the appellant in the

name of Harsh came in touch with the victim. He developed

relationship and assured the victim that he would marry her.

He established physical relations with the victim and in fact,

blackmailed her to deliver Rs. 56,000/-. The victim was

mentally, economically and physically exploited by the

appellant. An FIR was subsequently lodged in the year 2018

when the victim revealed the incident to her brother.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt, also the prosecution could not

establish that the victim was a child. It is argued that

according to the prosecution itself, the date of birth of the

victim is 04.11.1998 and according to the victim herself, she,

for the first time developed physical relations, sometime in

the year 2016. Learned counsel would submit that the date

of establishing physical relations has not been revealed by

the prosecution.

6. It is argued that till 03.11.2016 though the victim

may be considered to be a child, but after 04.11.2016 she

was 18 years of age as per prosecution itself. It is argued

that this benefit should go in favour of the appellant. It is

also argued that the statement of PW1, the victim herself

categorically reveals that in fact she knew the appellant, they

were in a relationship, they were in love and the victim had

been visiting the house of the appellant, she was meeting his

family members.

7. Learned State counsel would submit that the

victim was a child and the appellant concealed his identity to

establish a physical relations with the victim. The victim and

medical report supported the prosecution case. The Court

posed a question to the learned State counsel as to on which

date, for the first time, the appellant established physical

relations with the victim? Learned State counsel would

submit that there is no exact date.

8. At this stage, this Court refrains from making

deeper scrutiny of any material. Fact remains that according

to the victim, for the first time, physical relations was

established by the appellant with victim in the year 2016.

Fact also remains that according to the prosecution itself, till

03.11.2016 though the victim was 17 years of age, but she

had completed 18 years on 03.11.2016 and thereafter, she

was 18 years of age. PW1 the victim herself has stated that

she was in a relationship with the appellant and she was

visiting his house and meeting his family members.

9. Having considered the entirety of the facts, this

Court is of the view that bail application of the appellant

deserves to be allowed.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. The execution of sentence, appealed against, 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.) 02.03.2023 Mahinder/