Uttarakhand High Court

Hon'Ble Vivek Bharti Sharma vs Unknown on 2 May, 2025

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                   Office      Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                proceedings     or
         Date                                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 directions     and
                   Registrar's order
                   with Signatures
      02.05.2025                        CRJA No.100 of 2024
                                        Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Prateek Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate along with Mr. Devender Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Present criminal jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Spl. Judge POCSO, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in S.S.T. No.600/2018, "State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rakesh"

whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 363 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment; under Section 366A read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine directed to further undergo one month simple imprisonment; and Section 16/17 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

4. Heard on the bail application.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant would submit that if there is any witness who has deposed anything about the present appellant/convict that is only PW1/Prosecutrix and she has stated nothing against the appellant/convict except that when the main accused taken her to Punjab then the appellant was there with the main accused and the prosecutrix who resided together with the present appellant/convict in a single room in Punjab and the appellant /convict used to give money to the main accused; that, the appellant /convict may be released on bail as the appeal may take considerable time for its conclusion due to heavy pendency of cases.

6. Per contra, Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application, however, fairly concede that the only role assigned to the appellant /convict is that he used to give money to the co- accused who had seduced the prosecutrix to leave the parental home and took her to Punjab.

7. Having considered the entirety of the facts and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, the appellant/convict is admitted to bail.

8. Let the appellant/convict be released on bail, during the pendency of present criminal appeal, on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of ₹30,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.