Krishnapal vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6592 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Krishnapal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 December, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                      IA No. 1 of 2025 (Bail Application)
                                      In
                       Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2025

 Krishnapal                                                ........Appellant

                                    Versus

 State of Uttarakhand                                     ........Respondent

 Present:-
        Mr. V.S. Chauhan, 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 14.11.2025 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 72 of

2020, State of Uttarakhand v. Krishnapal, by the court of Additional

Sessions Judge/FTSC, Haridwar, District Haridwar. By it, the

appellant has been convicted under Section 504, 323 IPC and Section

8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the

POCSO Act") and sentenced as under:-

(i) Under Section 504 IPC - rigorous imprisonment for

a period of three one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

In default of payment of fine, to undergo further

imprisonment for a period of two months.

(ii) Under Section 323 IPC - rigorous imprisonment for

a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In

default of payment of fine, to undergo further

imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

(iii) Under Section 8 of the POCSO Act - rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine

of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to

undergo further imprisonment for a period of two

months.

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. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant has been sentenced for a maximum period of three years; he

could not obtain interim bail; applicant was on bail during trial; he is

in custody since more than three months.

6. The factual narrations are not disputed by the learned

State Counsel.

7. Having considered, 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.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

10. 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.

11. List the criminal appeal for final hearing in due course.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 30.12.2025 Avneet/