CRJA/79/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 1397 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 I.A. No.1 of 2023 (Bail Application)
                                 In
                                 CRJA No. 79 of 2022
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'blePankajPurohit, J.

Mrs. Shruti Joshi, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment & order dated 21.07.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.S.C., Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2018, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (jha) I.P.C. read with Sections 5(Tha)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay a fine of ` 20,000/-.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the bail application moved on behalf of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that veracity of the prosecution version is doubtful. Learned Counsel contends that FIR is not prompt inasmuch as the alleged incident took place on 28.12.1997 and the FIR could be lodged almost after one month of the said incident. Learned Counsel further contends that there are material contradictions about the age of the victim, who has been falsely shown as minor only to aggravate the offence. Learned Counsel contends that as per the birth certificate (Ex. Kha-1), issued under Registration of Deaths and Births Act, the date of birth of victim is 14.7.1997 and inconsistencies in the age related evidence adduced by the prosecution completely discredits the entire prosecution version and the Court below has overlooked this aspect while convicting the appellant. Learned Counsel contends that three other co- accused persons, including appellant's father, were implicated and after the investigation, they were exonerated. Learned Counsel further contends that the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. Learned Counsel contends that FIR is the result of opposition of victim's parents to her relationship with the appellant. Learned Counsel also contends that appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty and he has no previous criminal history apart from the instant case and he is in jail since 21.7.2022.

5. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and contended that the offence is heinous and appellant has been convicted after trial, based on reliable and believable evidence.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and without any comment on the final merits of the appeal, we are of the opinion that appellant deserves bail at this stage. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

7. Let the appellant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned.

(PankajPurohit, J.) (Manoj KumarTiwari, J.) 19.05.2023 Arpan