CRLA/197/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 3996 UK

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3996 UK
Judgement Date : 30 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/197/2025 on 30 August, 2025

         Office Notes, reports,
S    D
         orders or proceedings
L.   a
           or directions and                                      COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
N    t
         Registrar's order with
o.   e
               Signatures


                                  CRLA No. 197 of 2025

                                  Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant.

2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for the Complainant.

4. The present Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.S.C. (POCSO), District Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2017, titled as "State vs. Saleem", arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2017, Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. The appellant was convicted under Sections 354D, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹40,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was acquitted by the trial court of the charges under Sections 354D, 504, and 506 IPC as well as Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and was convicted only under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. It is further submitted that the Appellant has already undergone almost half of the sentence awarded to him, and hence, he may be granted bail at this stage, without going into the merits of the case. It is further submitted that the victim, during trial, stated that she voluntarily wished to stay with the Appellant. At the time of making such statements, she had attained the age of majority. It was also stated that the sister of the Appellant had married the elder brother of the victim in 2015, and thereafter, the Appellant and victim developed a relationship and intended to marry of their own volition. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is not likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence if released on bail.

6. Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the Complainant have opposed the bail application, arguing that the age of the victim at the time of the alleged offence was below 18, and hence, her consent is immaterial in the eyes of law. It is further argued that the offences are serious and therefore, the Appellant does not deserve bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, without going into the merits of the case, the fact that the appellant has already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, coupled with the fact that he was on bail during trial and did not violate bail conditions, makes out a fit case for grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the Appellant- Saleem be released on bail in the above case, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: