CRLA/332/2017
2025 Latest Caselaw 5484 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/332/2017 on 13 November, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                  CRLA No.332 of 2017
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, learned legal-aid counsel for the appellant/applicant.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The appellant/applicant is exempted from filing the affidavit in support of 2nd Bail Application. Exemption Application (IA/2335/ 2025) stands disposed of.

4. Learned legal-aid counsel for the appellant/applicant would press the Second Bail Application (IA/2336/2025) for release of appellant/applicant on bail.

5. Learned legal-aid counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that appellant/ applicant is under incarceration on his conviction vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned Fast Track Court/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradu in Special Sessions Trial No.12 of 2015, State Vs. Suraj Shreshth, for the offence punishable under Sections 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 and was mainly sentenced for 07 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.30,000/- under Section 4 of POCSO Act, in respect of victim No.1 and under Sections 376(2)(i), 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 and was mainly sentenced for 10 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.30,000/- under Section 376(2)(i) IPC, in respect of victim No.2. The sentences for both the victims were directed to run separately.

6. He further submits that appellant/ applicant is languishing in jail since his arrest i.e.21.11.2014 and, he has spent almost 11 years under incarceration. He also submits that the first bail application was rejected by this court vide order dated 14.06.2024. It is contended by him that appellant/applicant is poor person and only bread earner in his family and further he has spent a long incarceration, thus, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the second bail application stating that there is no new ground taken by the appellant/applicant in the second bail application, he has taken the same ground as taken in first bail application.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, since no new ground has been taken by the appellant/applicant in second bail application and further he has been convicted for heinous offences committed with two minor real sisters, this Court is not inclined to allow the second bail application. Further, the submission taken by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant regarding long incarceration, this Court is of the view that too is not made out in favour of appellant/ applicant looking heinous crime committed by him. Thus, this Court is not inclined to grant bail the appellant/applicant at this stage.

9. Accordingly, second bail application (IA/2336/2025) is rejected.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.11.2025 PN