Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/471/2024 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
CRLA NO. 471 of 2024
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. along with Mr.
Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Present criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2023
passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge,
Pithoragarh in Special Sessions Trial No. 22 of
2019, whereby the appellant was convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 354 IPC,
and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant was
sentenced under Section 354 IPC to undergo five
years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
₹20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.
He was also convicted under Section 7 read with
Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to
pay a fine of ₹20,000/-, and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo one year's rigorous
imprisonment.
4. There is a delay of 204 days in filing the
present criminal appeal. A delay condonation
application supported by an affidavit has been filed
by the appellant/applicant.
5. The cause shown is found sufficient. The
delay is condoned. The delay condonation
application is accordingly allowed.
6. Admit the appeal.
7. Also heard on Bail Application (IA No. 2 of
2024).
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant
would submit that the appellant/applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated; that, even
if the prosecution case is taken at face value, the
allegation is only that the appellant/applicant took
the victim from Dharchula to Haldwani.; that, as per
the statements of the victim and her father, the
victim was recovered from the rented house of the
appellant. It is argued that, at the highest, the
incident occurred with the consent of the victim as
she stayed with the appellant of her own free will.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant
would further submit that as per the victim's father,
the recovery was made from Haldwani, whereas the
arrest memo and the statement of PW7 Meenakshi
Rautela, Sub-Inspector, show that the appellant was
arrested on 25.05.2019 from Asnola, Didihat,
thereby creating a contradiction in the prosecution
case. It is also argued that there was inordinate
delay in lodging the FIR and no satisfactory
explanation has been offered; that, there is no
independent witness who saw the victim with the
accused; and that no independent witness has been
examined to support the prosecution version.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant
also pointed out that the appellant has been in
custody since 01.12.2023; that he was on bail
during the trial and never misused the liberty
granted to him; and that the hearing of the appeal
will take considerable time. Hence, he is entitled to
be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the
bail application but admitted that the FIR was
lodged with inordinate delay and that the appellant
was on bail during trial and did not misuse the
liberty.
12. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the appellant is
admitted to bail.
13. Let the appellant be released on bail during
pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
14. The bail application stands disposed of
accordingly.
15. List the case in due course.
16. Meanwhile, the Registry shall prepare the
paper book and supply the same to learned counsel
for the parties as per Rules.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
02.08.2025
Mamta
