Uttarakhand High Court
Shomil vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 June, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2025
With
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
Shomil ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal appeal is preferred against the
judgment and order dated 05/06.03.2025, passed in Special
Sessions Trial No.159 of 2022, State Vs. Shomil, by the court of
Additional District And Sessions Judge, FTC, POCSO, Haridwar.
By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under
Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012.
2. Heard.
3. The appeal is already admitted.
4. Heard on bail application (IA No.1 of 2024).
5. According to the prosecution case, the appellant
was tenant of the informant. He was not paying rent. It was due
for three months. The informant sent his daughter, a young girl,
for collecting rent from the informant. When the victim reached
the appellant, she demanded the rent. The applicant said that he
did not have money then. When the victim turned to return, the
appellant hold her by her hand and muffled her mouth. In the
meanwhile, somehow the victim managed to escape.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the prosecution case is false; it has been filed so as to evict
the appellant from the tenancy; the informant, the father of the
victim, had no reason to send his young daughter to collect the
money, when it was due for three months; there were other family
members in the family, including the elder brother of the victim;
the FIR is lodged on 23.08.2022, which is much delayed; the
informant says that he had gone to the Police Station on
19.08.2022 also, which, it is argued, falsifies the case because the
incident allegedly took place on 20.08.2022. Referring to the
cross-examination of the PW1, the informant, it is argued that the
FIR has been lodged after consulting a lawyer, and it is a case fit
for bail.
7. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
8. Admittedly, the FIR, in the instant case, has been
lodged in the instant case on 23.08.2022. PW1, the informant,
has stated in the cross examination that he had visited the Police
Station on 19.08.2022, and on 20.08.2022 also. He also admits
that the FIR was written by a lawyer, who has admittedly not been
examined.
9. If the incident took place on 20.08.2022, why did
PW1, the informant, visited the Police Station on 19.08.2022?
This and many more questions would find determination during
trial.
10. 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.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. The sentence appealed against is suspended during
the pendency of the appeal.
13. 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 for final hearing in due course.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.06.2025
Ravi Bisht
