Uttarakhand High Court
Vivek Mamgain vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2025
Vivek Mamgain ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pavan
Kumar Nath, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment
and order dated 17.04.2025, passed in Special Sessions
Trial No. 03 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vivek
Mamgain @ Vicky, by the court of Special Sessions Judge,
Chamoli (Gopeshwar). By it, the appellant has been
convicted under Section 363 IPC and Section 7/8 of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the
Act") and sentenced as hereunder:-
(i) Under Section 363 IPC:- To undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of
payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of 15
days.
(ii) Under Section 7/8 of the Act:- to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years and six months with a fine of
Rs.2,5000/-. In default of payment of fine,
to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of 15 days.
The appellant seeks bail in this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Admit.
4. Call for the LCR.
5. After receipt of the LCR, paper book be prepared
and provided to learned counsel for the parties, as per
Rules.
6. List thereafter for final hearing.
Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2025
7. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that it is a false case. The appellant
has already been in custody for more than one year, ten
day. He would submit that witnesses have not supported
the prosecution. There are lot of contradictions. He would
submit that according to the victim, the appellant took her
on a Scooty, whereas the sister of the victim who has been
examined as PW3 tells the court that she had called her
sister, but she did not pay any heed to it. It is also argued
that about the factum of the appellant and the victim, it is
quite contradictory that on the one hand, according to the
victim, she and the appellant were recovered from the dense
forest, whereas according to the other witnesses, the
appellant was found on the road in an intoxicated state.
8. Learned State counsel would submit that the
victim is a minor girl. She has supported the prosecution
case.
9. It is a post conviction bail. The victim has stated
that while returning from Pooja, on the way the appellant
offered her lift and took her on the scooty and thereafter,
the incident took place. Where as, according to the sister of
the victim, she had called the victim from behind, but she
did not pay any heed to her.
10 Having considered, without adverting much on
merits, this Court is of the view it is a case in which the
execution of sentence should be suspended and the
appellant be enlarged on bail.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. The sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
13. The appellant be released on bail, during the
pendency of the appeal, 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.)
29.04.2025
Jitendra
