Uttarakhand High Court
CRJA/66/2024 on 4 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
(Bail Appl. No.01 of 2025)
In
CRJA No.66 of 2024
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Ravi Shankar Kandpal, learned Legal
Aid counsel the Applicant.
2. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand.
3. This is a jail appeal filed on behalf of the
Applicant/convict. The application has been moved
through the Jailer, District Jail, Almora and he is
being represented by a Legal Aid counsel Mr. Ravi
Shankar Kandpal.
4. The applicant-Chandan Prasad alias Chandu
is under conviction as per the judgment and order
dated 14.02.2024 whereby an award against him
was passed under Section 511/ 376 IPC and Section
10 of the POCSO Act and he was directed to
undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment of six months has been
imposed. The benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
had been granted to the Applicant/convict whereby
the period already undergone was to be considered.
5. The said conviction was passed in the Special
Sessions Trial No.17 of 2023 arising out of FIR
No.47 of 2023 under Section 376 and 511 of IPC
alongwith Section 9(m)/10 and 18 of the POCSO
Act.
6. The bail application of Applicant/convict
Chandan Prasad alias Chandu son of Shri Himmat
Ram is being moved alongwith the present Jail
Appeal. The main grounds of the bail has put forth
by the learned Legal Aid counsel for the
Applicant/convict is that he had been falsely
implicated in the matter and despite the victim in
the present matter have not supported the
prosecution version, the learned Special Sessions
Judge convicted the Applicant in the said offence,
which he did not commit at the outset.
7. Learned Legal Aid counsel for the
Applicant/convict made reference to the statements
of the victim that was deposed before learned trial
court. It is submitted that the victim categorically
did not support the prosecution story thus all the
allegations regarding rape has not been supported
by the statement of the victim. Section 10 of the
POCSO Act deals with the punishment for
aggravated sexual assault and Section 376 of IPC
deals with the offence of rape and Section 511 of
IPC deals with the punishment for attempting to
commit offence punishable for imprisonment of life
i.e. rape.
8. Learned Legal Aid counsel also submits that
the medical report also does not support the
prosecution version. During the course of
arguments, learned Legal Aid counsel also
submitted that initially as per FIR and the
statements of the victim under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. the prosecution story goes that the
Applicant/convict had made an attempt for
Commission of rape and by doing so he tore the
cloths which the victim was wearing but neither the
statement has been corroborated by the victim nor
the alleged tearing of the cloth has been verified.
9. In this regard, learned Legal Aid counsel
submits that the cloths in question was not taken for
examination by the police investigating team neither
it was sent for forensic laboratory for making the
case of the prosecution even weaker; despite this
learned Special Sessions court wrongly came to a
conclusion that the accused had committed an
offence of attempt to rape on the being of the
victim.
10. As per the report of the Jailer, Sampurnanand
Camp/Central Jail, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh
Nagar Applicant/convict has already undergone
almost half of the sentence that he was awarded. He
is already on bail.
11. Learned State counsel has strongly opposed
the bail application and submits that this is a serious
offence that has been committed by the
Applicant/convict/accused and learned Special
Sessions Judge has rightly convicted him after an
elaborate judgment and finding thereon.
12. In her statement given to the police under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C deposed before the Magistrate she has
categorically stated that all the offences the
Applicant/convict/accused was charged with and he
was tried by the learned Special Sessions Judge.
13. Besides this other witnesses corroborated the
prosecution story and there is enough evidence
including the medical report that directly points to
the commission of offence committed by the
Applicant/convict/accused and thus it is prayed that
the bail application may be rejected.
14. At this juncture without going in the merits of
the case and primarily finding that since the victim
has not supported the prosecution case and
categorically denied regarding the offence
committed by the Applicant/convict/accused and
also the fact that he has spent almost half of the
sentence in jail and considering the age of the
Applicant/convict/accused, this Court finds the
grounds for bail.
15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the Applicant-Chandan Prasad alias Chandu be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to
the satisfaction of court concerned.
16. List this appeal on 26.09.2025.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
04.08.2025
Arti
