[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Aftab vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No. 1 of 2024 (Bail Application)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2024
Aftab ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and
order dated 05.08.2024 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 198 of
2019, State of Uttarakhand v. Aftab, by the court of FTSC/Additional
Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 452, 354,
506 IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
2. The appellant seeks bail during pendency of the appeal.
3. This is an admitted appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on bail application
and perused the record.
5. According to the FIR, on 20.05.2019 at 02:00 p.m., when
the victim, a young girl, was alone in her house, the appellant entered
into the house, muffled her mouth and tried to rape her.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire
case is false; there are great contradictions in the statements of the
witnesses. According to him, in her statement under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code"), the victim has not stated
anything about molestation or attempt of rape; instead, she has stated
that on the date of incident, when she was all alone in her house,
somebody knocked at the door, the person wanted to come inside, but,
she raised an alarm, the neighbours came and that person ran away.
It is argued that the mother of the victim was examined as PW 1, who
claims to have reached at the spot after two hours of the incident, and
the maternal aunt of the victim was examined as PW 3, who claims to
have reached at the spot after ten minutes of the incident, but, both of
them have stated that when they came, the appellant was caught hold
by the neighbours and thereafter he ran away. It is argued that PW 5,
the younger sister of the victim was nowhere in the picture; in fact, in
the FIR as well in her statement, the victim has not stated anything
about molestation; it doubts the prosecution case.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that the victim and the
other witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
8. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the
discussion is not expected of.
9. Admittedly, after lodging of the FIR, the victim has been
examined under Section 164 of the Code. The victim has not stated
anything about her molestation. She has simply stated that on the
date of incident when she was all alone in her house, somebody
knocked the door and wanted to come inside. She raised an alarm.
Thereafter, the neighbours came and that person ran away.
10. Having considered this and other attending factors, this
Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of the
sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
13. Let 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.
14. List the criminal appeal for final hearing in due course.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
29.12.2025
Avneet/
