Bharat Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 900 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Bharat Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 July, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                    IA No. 2 of 2023 (Bail Application)
                                 In
                   Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2023

 Bharat Ram                                                ........Appellant
                                   Versus

 State of Uttarakhand                                      .......Respondent

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

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and order dated 07.02.2023, passed in Sessions Trial No. 18

of 2021, State of Uttarakhand v. Bharat Ram, by the court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. By it, the appellant has been

convicted under Sections 376 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of

Rs. 50,000/- under Section 376 IPC and to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-

under Section 323 IPC.

2. The appellant has filed the bail application seeking his

release on 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. The appellant is the son-in-law of the victim, a woman

aged about 62 years. The appellant was staying in the home of the

victim along with his wife. Subsequently, they had taken a room

separately. It is the prosecution case that on 21.03.2021, the appellant

raped the victim whole night and thereafter assaulted her also.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is in custody since more than four and a half years now; the

appellant has been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment;

the FIR has been lodged due to matrimonial dispute of the appellant

with his wife; who happens to be the daughter of the victim. Learned

counsel for the appellant submits that, according to the prosecution

case, the appellant had also given teeth bite, but the medical does not

support the prosecution case; the FIR was lodged much after the

incident on 23.03.2021; medical was not promptly done; it was done

on 25.03.2021.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that the prosecution has

been able to establish its case, though she admits that there is no

teeth bite marks. She also submits that with regard to sexual assault,

there is no such opinion given by the doctor.

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

case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the

appellant be enlarged on bail.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

11. 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.

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

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 14.07.2025 Avneet/