CRLA/466/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2931 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  IA No. 1 of 2023 (Bail Application)
                                  In
                                  CRLA No. 466 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate, for the appellant/applicant.

2. Mr. J. S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Akshay Latwal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2023 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, District

of 2019, whereby appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (JHA)(3) IPC. Appellant has been sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 363, with fine of 10,000/- with default stipulation; under Section 366 IPC, 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(2)(Jha)(3), with fine of 50,000/- with default stipulation. The appellant has sought bail during pendency of this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is not a substantial piece of evidence. It is further contended that the victim did not support the prosecution version during trial and she denied the allegation of rape. It is also contended that prosecution story is not supported by medical or other evidence.

5. Mr. J. S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail. He conceded that the victim did not support the prosecution version during trial. He however submitted that victim had made statement before Medical Officer at the time of her medical examination that she was sexually assaulted by the appellant.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail.

6. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the appellant-applicant Sumitanand be released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned.

7. List this appeal in due course for final hearing.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.10.2023 Kaushal