Sunil vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 832 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sunil vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 February, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
                               In
                Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2024

Sunil                                               ......Appellant

                              Versus


State of Uttarakhand                               ....Respondent

Present:
            Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
            Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.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 and

order dated 31.07.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 39 of

2020, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sunil, by the court of Special Judge

(POCSO)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun. By it,

the appellant has been convicted under Section 377 IPC and Section

6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the

Act") and sentenced under Section 6 of the Act. He seeks bail in this

appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. This is an admitted appeal.

4. List in due course.

Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2024

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

victim has not supported the prosecution case. He has not identified

the appellant as the person who has committed the offence. In fact,

he has stated that the appellant did not commit any offence against

him. He submits that the Forensic Science Laboratory ("FSL") report

is not conclusive. Even it is not shown by the prosecution that who

took the underwear of the victim into custody and how through safe

custody it was forwarded to the FSL.

6. Learned State counsel admits that the victim has not

supported the prosecution case and has stated that appellant did

not commit any offence with him. According to him, the FSL report

connects the appellant with the offence. According to the FSL report,

the semen of the appellant was found on the underwear of the

victim.

7. PW5 Kusum Lata Purohit, the Investigating Officer in

para 1 of her cross examination submits that she has not taken into

custody the clothes that were worn by the victim at the time of

incident. If it is so, who took the underwear of the victim into

custody? Where was it kept? How the samples were taken and safely

kept before they were forwarded for examination by FSL? It has not

been clarified by the learned State counsel. Admittedly, the victim

has not supported the prosecution case.

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.