Manoj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2144 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Manoj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 February, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Bail Application No. 03 of 2024
                          In
           Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2024

Manoj Kumar                                       ......Appellant

                            Versus


State of Uttarakhand                            ....Respondent



Present:
           Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the appellant.
           Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment

and order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 17

of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Manoj Kumar, by the

court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTSC

(POCSO), Dehradun. By it, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of

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

simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

The appellant has sought bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant

who happens to be nephew of the victim was staying with

the family of the victim. The husband of the victim was a

Guard. He would remain on duty in the night. According to

the prosecution case, the appellant raped the victim on

multiple occasions under threat by force.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the husband of the victim has never been examined.

The appellant is in custody for the last four years. The

husband of the victim was named in the FIR, but he has

been exonerated. He would submit that the statement of the

victim is not corroborating the FIR.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that the

victim has supported the prosecution case. She has

sustained some injuries, which have been confirmed by the

medical evidence.

6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is

not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the

caveat that any observation made in this order shall have

no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any

other proceedings.

7. The appellant is a convict. The presumption of

innocence is not available to him which otherwise available

to the under trial. The appellant happens to be the nephew

of the victim. He was staying with the victim's family.

According to the victim, her husband was deputed in the

guard duty in the night. She was raped by the appellant

forcibly and thereafter, the appellant continued raping her.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

9. The bail application is rejected.

10. List for hearing the appeal on 01.05.2025.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.02.2025 Jitendra