Arun Gariya vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1433 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Arun Gariya vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

      IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail and Suspension of Sentence
                          Application
                                In
               Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2024

Arun Gariya                                                ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                      ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. S.C. Burman, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, 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 14.02.2024, passed in Special Sessions

Trial No.58 of 2021, State Vs. Arun Gariya, by the court of

FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO),

Haldwani, District Nainital. By it, the appellant has been

convicted under Sections 363, 366, 323 IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and

sentenced accordingly.

2. This appeal has already been admitted.

3. List in due course for final hearing.

4. Heard on Bail and Suspension of Sentence

Application (IA) No.1 of 2024.

5. According to the FIR, the victim was a student of

class XII, when she met the appellant. The appellant came close to

her, offered gifts to her, and one day, while spiking her drink,

established physical relations with her, and thereafter, continued

doing so. The FIR is a long story. It speaks that for 5 years, the

appellant kept the victim with him.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

entire story is false; the appellant is innocent; the victim, in her

statement, has stated that the FIR was lodged after due

consultation from a lawyer; the FIR is 5 years delayed; during

those 5 years, the victim was with the appellant. She did not lodge

any report, etc.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that the victim

was 15 years of age at the time of incident; the appellant is

already married, having a child; the victim has supported the

prosecution case.

8. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the

discussion is not expected of. The presumption of innocence is not

available to the appellant because it is bail post conviction.

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.

9. The victim has been examined during trial. She

has stated as to how she was enticed and lured by the appellant;

the victim has stated that she was a bright student, but due to

intimacy, the appellant spoiled her carrier, and she was with the

appellant for 5 years, who already had been married, having a

child.

10. Having considered,, this Court does not see any

ground, which may entitle the appellant to bail. Accordingly, the

bail application deserves to be rejected.

11. The bail application is rejected.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.02.2026

Ravi Bisht