[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Firoz vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 2025
With
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
Firoz ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Ms. Nipushmola Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been preferred against
judgment and order dated 30.08.2025-02.09.2025, passed in
Special Sessions Trial No.29 of 2019, State Vs. Firoz, by the court
of Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun.
By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under
Sections 376 and 511 IPC and Sections 17 and 18 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Heard.
3. This appeal has already been admitted.
4. The LCR has already been received.
5. List in due course for final hearing.
6. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2025.
7. According to the FIR, on 15.01.2019, the co-
convict Shoaib enticed the victim, a young girl, took her in a
house and raped her. The victim returned to her home at 6:30 in
the evening and revealed it to her family members.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
entire case is false; the appellant was not named in the FIR;
subsequently, the prosecution has improvised the version, when it
was detected that Shoaib was a child in conflict with law; the
name of the appellant has been implicated as the person, who
accompanied Shoaib; the appellant and the victim knew each
other for 4-5 months; he has not done anything, which may
amount to offence.
9. Learned State Counsel submits that the appellant
has accompanied the main accused, whereas, the main accused,
who committed the rape on the victim, was a child in conflict with
law.
10. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the
discussion, at this stage, is not expected of. Arguments are being
appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this
order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the
proceedings.
11. In fact, the main allegation has been levelled
against one Shoaib, who is already named in the FIR. There is no
mention of the appellant in the FIR, but subsequently, during her
examination under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, the victim has stated that once Shoaib raped her, and the
appellant also entered into the room and tried to molest her, but
she pushed him and came out. Does it amount to attempt to
rape? This and many more questions would find deliberation
during the hearing of the appeal.
12. Having considered the entirety of facts, 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.
13. The bail application is allowed.
14. The sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
15. Let 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.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.02.2026
Ravi Bisht
