Satendra vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1115 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Satendra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                    Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2023)
                                In
                  Criminal Appeal No.449 of 2023

Satendra                                            ........Appellant

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand                               ........Respondent
Present:-

          Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
          Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy A.G. for the State.

Coram:Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment of

conviction dated 19.06.2023, passed in Special Session Trial No.04 of

2019, State Vs. Satendra, by the court of learned Additional District &

Session Judge/FTSC (POCSO), Dehradun. By it, the appellant has

been convicted and sentenced under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and 6

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The

appellant seeks bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. According to the FIR, on 30.08.2018, the appellant enticed

the victim, a young girl and he kept the victim with him for many

weeks before she could have been recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

appellant and the victim, both were in a romantic relationship. The age

of the appellant was 20 years at the time of incident. They solemnized

their marriage and when the family members extended threat to them,

they filed a writ petition for protection in the Hon'ble High Court of

Allahabad bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.31072 of 2018, Smt.

Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr ("the writ petition"). In the writ

petition on 20.09.2018, the Court had provided protection to them.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact, in

the Aadhar Card of the victim, the age is recorded as 20 years, i.e.

what is recorded in the order of the writ petition by the Hon'ble High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim was

minor. She was not 20 years of age. She admits that the writ petition

was filed by the victim and the appellant in the Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad for protection. She referred to para 38 of the

impugned judgment to argue that the Court in the impugned judgment

it is recorded that the Aadhar Card was forged.

7. In the order of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad passed in that writ petition, no such observation is made

that the Aadhar Card was forged.

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. 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 in due course.

(Siddartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.02.2026 17.02.2026 RS