Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/518/2022 on 2 August, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
IA No.1 of 2022
In
CRLA No.518 of 2022
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyan Mati
Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned DAG
along with Ms Meenakshi Sharma,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. This Appeal has been preferred
against the judgment & order dated
22.11.2022 passed by learned FTSC/
Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur,
Udham Singh Nagar in Special Session
Trial No.408 of 2018, whereby appellant
has been convicted under Sections 363,
366 and 376(2) IPC and was awarded
maximum punishment of 10 years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of
₹10,000/-. The fine was also awarded
under the other sections, in which
appellant was convicted. The appellant
has sought his release on bail.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, on
04.12.2017, appellant Sonu Gihar and
one Surmila took the victim to Khatima
on a motorcycle saying that the victim's
mother had met with an accident and
from there the victim came to Khatima
with appellant and one Surmila; that,
accused took her to Pilibhit, from there
took her to Puranpur and locked her in a
room along with his friend; after that,
appellant kept her with him for 6-7 days
and raped her.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties on the bail application moved on
behalf of the appellant.
6. 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 04.12.2017 and the FIR could
be lodged almost after six days of the
said incident. Learned Counsel further
contends that there are material
contradictions in the statement of the
victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and
as PW1 before the trial court; that,
inasmuch as in her 164 statement, she
has submitted that she was brought back
to her house by mother of the accused,
whereas in her statement as PW1, she
has stated that she was brought back to
her house by her mother and uncle.
7. He would further submit that as per
the statement of PW2-complainant, the
complainant and her relatives reached
Puranpur and allegedly recovered the
victim; however, in her cross
examination, she had failed to state the
source from where she was apprised
about the whereabouts of the victim;
that PW3/uncle of victim, who had
categorically stated that the victim was
taken by the appellant and after 3-4
days the victim came back; however, in
his cross examination, he stated that he
never saw the appellant taking the victim
and the victim came back to her home
on her own will.
8. 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 2022.
9. 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.
10. In that view, this Court is of the
opinion that the very place of occurrence
of the sexual assault being doubtful in
view of the statement of the victim and
other prosecution witnesses, this Court is
of the opinion that appellant deserves
bail at this stage.
11. The bail application is allowed. The
appellant is directed to be enlarged on
bail, if not required in any other case,
subject to appellant executing a personal
bond and furnishing two sureties, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Magistrate.
12. List this case in due course.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
02.08.2025
BS
