Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/294/2016 on 5 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                   COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               Bail Appl. No.1 of 2022
                               In
                               CRLA No.294 of 2016
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. Mr. Piyush Singh Sammal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ram Singh Sammal, learned counsel for appellant/applicant.

2. Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

3. This appeal against conviction has been filed by the appellant challenging judgment and order dated 31.08.2016, passed by Special Judge (POCSO)/Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2016, whereby appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 377 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 506 IPC and 12 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

4. Today, matter is listed on first bail application.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that alleged eyewitnesses have not been examined; prosecution has not offered any explanation for non- examination of alleged eyewitnesses; medical examination specifically provides that no definite opinion can be given about unnatural sex; appellant has served more than 8 years and 9 months upon conviction and with remission, period of incarceration is 11 years, 5 months and appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. He argued that no reason or aggravating circumstances exist for denial of bail to the appellant at this stage.

6. Learned State counsel opposed the bail application by contending that appellant has committed heinous offence. However, he has admitted that appellant has undergone 8 years, 10 months and 1 day as on today and with remission, he served 11 years, 5 months and 21 days.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the appellant has served a considerable period in jail upon his conviction, we are of the opinion that a case for bail at this stage is made out.

8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Inder Singh, be released on bail, subject to the condition of his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of court concerned.

9. List in due course.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.05.2025 Arti