CRLA/649/2024
2025 Latest Caselaw 4000 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/649/2024 on 30 August, 2025

                     Office Notes,
                    reports, orders
SL.                 or proceedings
         Date                                               COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 or directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      30.08.2025                       IA No.01 of 2024 (Bail Application)
                                       In
                                       CRLA No. 649 of 2024
                                       Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Anchit Khokher, learned counsel for the Appellant.

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

3. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/convict against the judgment/order dated 30.09.2024/01.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, District Dehradun in S.S.T. No. 100 of 2021 (Case Crime No.421 of 2021), titled as "State vs. Raju @ Rajkumar", whereby the appellant/convict has been convicted and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 354 of IPC along with fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant/convict had been directed to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment and further also, the appellant/convict has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 9(n)/10 of POCSO Act along with fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant/convict had been directed to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict submits that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident; the victim as well as her father refused to get her (prosecutrix/victim) medical check up done, which itself creates doubt upon the prosecution story; the appellant is the maternal uncle of the victim and they live opposite each other and there was a dispute going between them regarding the house and learned trial did not consider this important aspect of the matter and the trial court passed the impugned judgment and order without proper application of judicious mind, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed/set-aside.

He further submits that the appellant/convict was released on bail during trial and had never misused the liberty of bail granted to him.

5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application, however, admitted that the appellant/convict was on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted to him.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties but without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the appellant/convict is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of ₹50,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, subject to the condition that bail shall not be breeched and the appellant/convict has to be present before the concerned authorities whenever he is called.

7. Bail Application stands allowed.

8. List this matter after two weeks.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 30.08.2025 Akash