Suraj Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1895 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Suraj Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 August, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                     Bail Application No. 1 of 2024
                                   In
                     Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2024


Suraj Pal                                                   ......Appellant

                                 Versus


State of Uttarakhand                                        ....Respondent

Present:
              Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
              Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and

order dated 12.01.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No.24 of 2022, State

of Uttarakhand Vs. Suraj Pal, by the court of Additional District and

Sessions Judge/FTSC (POCSO), Dehradun. By it, the appellant has

been convicted under Section 376 and 506 IPC sentenced as

hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 376 IPC - rigorous imprisonment for

a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In

default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a further period of three months.

(ii) Under Section 506 IPC - rigorous imprisonment for

a period of one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In

default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month.

The appellant has sought bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. According to the FIR, on 08.12.2021, at 9:45 in the

morning, when the victim was proceeding to her job, the appellant

waylaid her, took her in the forest and raped her. FIR of the incident

was lodged on the same date at 8:43 PM.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire

case is false; there is no evidence against the appellant. According to

the victim, who is examined as PW1, she did not know the applicant;

despite that FIR has been lodged naming the appellant as an accused.

She submits that it casts doubt in the prosecution case.

5. PW1, the victim has been examined at trial. She has

stated that a person met her on the date of incident, when she was

proceeding to her job, waylaid her. She did know the person. She

revealed the figure of the person to her colleagues. Thereafter, they

visited the house of the applicant. According to the PW1, a person

named Vardan has revealed the identity of the appellant, but Vardan

has not been examined.FIR is by name.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution

of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on

bail.

7. The bail application is allowed.

8. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

9. 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.

10. List in due course.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.08.2025 Jitendra