Mahkar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 700 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mahkar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 July, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                    IA No. 1 of 2024 (Bail Application)
                                 In
                   Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2023

 Mahkar                                                      ........Appellant

                                   Versus

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

 Present:-
        Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
        Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment

and order dated 31.03.2023/01.04.2023 recorded in Special Sessions

Trial No. 184 of 2021, State v. Mahkar, by the court of learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO,

Haridwar, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section

354 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act") and has been sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 354 IPC with a

fine of Rs. 10,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five

years under Section 7/8 of the Act with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

2. The appeal is already admitted.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on bail application

and perused the record.

4. According to the prosecution case, on 30.07.2021, when

the victim, a young girl, was returning after tuition, the appellant

along with two other persons followed her, passed vulgar comments

and told that they would take the victim along with them. When the

victim tried to ignore them, they snatched her "Dupatta" (scarf) and

pulled her by hand. When the victim raised alarm, the appellant and

the co-accused were apprehended on the spot.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

victim has not categorically stated as to who, out of three persons

passed comment on her; the appellant was apprehended by the crowd

and then the name of the appellant was revealed and told to the

victim. It is submitted that the eyewitnesses have not been examined.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim and

other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. She would

submit that the sessions trial was fixed on 31.03.2021 for delivery of

judgment, on which date the applicant was convicted, but he did not

appear. Thereafter, NBW was issued against him and he was brought

before the court. It is also submitted that the applicant had six more

cases pending on the date of judgment in the instant case.

7. Having considered the gravity of offence and other

attending factors, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for

bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

8. The bail application is rejected.

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

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 03.07.2025 Avneet/