[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Aman Kumar Kashyap Alias Ajay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2022
With
IA No.1 of 2022 For Bail and Suspension of Sentence
Application
Aman Kumar Kashyap Alias Ajay Kumar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate for the appellant, through video conferencing.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. 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 20.10.2022, passed in Special Sessions
Trial No.480 of 2019, State Vs. Aman Kumar Kashyap @ Ajay
Kumar, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellant has
been convicted under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 4(2) 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 2022.
5. According to the prosecution case, the victim, who
was a student of class VII, was enticed by the appellant on
12.10.2019, at about 8:00 a.m., and took her away in a
motorcycle and dropped her at 6:00 p.m. on the same date. On
her return, the victim revealed the incident to her family
members. The FIR was lodged on 14.10.2019.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
entire case is based on the evidence of the victim, who has been
examined as PW3 in the trial, but there are some minor
contradictions in her statement recorded during trial as well as
her statement recorded during investigation under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"); in fact, post
incident, for the first time, the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 164 of the Code on 12.12.2019, which is
almost after two months from the date of incident. Therefore, it
may not be ruled out that the victim was tutored; the appellant
has not been medically examined, which is mandatory.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that the medical
report supports the prosecution case, which was conducted on
15.10.2019; the victim was about 12 years of age on the date of
incident; the victim has also 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. It is true that if statement of any witness is
recorded during investigation much after the incident, such
statement requires conscious scrutiny. The Court wanted to know
from learned counsel for the appellant as to when the victim was
examined under Section 161 of the Code? But he expresses
ignorance about it. The question of tutoring at the belated stage
may be considered if at earlier stage, the victim has not stated
anything. It is true that the FIR has been lodged on 14.10.2019,
whereas, the incident took place on 12.10.2019. There is a delay
of two days. In such incidents, generally, this delay is not
considered material unless otherwise shown, which is not shown
in the instant case.
10. The version of the victim is in the FIR as to what
had happened. This is what she has stated in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Code, which was recorded on
12.12.2019. In her statement in the court also, she has stated as
to what had happened to her. The Court refrains to make deeper
scrutiny of it.
11. The victim has not been confronted about her
statement recorded during trial investigation. Even, no suggestion
has been given with regard to the statement of the victim recorded
during investigation. The medical examination of the victim was
done on 15.10.2019, wherein, she has stated as to what had
happened to her, which is in consonance to the prosecution case.
12. Having considered, this Court does not see any
ground, which may entitle the appellant to bail. Accordingly, the
bail application deserves to be rejected.
13. The bail application is rejected.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
11.02.2026
Ravi Bisht
