Sunny Alias Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2093 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sunny Alias Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                IA No.2 of 2026 For Bail Application
                                      In
                Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2026

Sunny alias Sonu                                              ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                          ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder 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 03/05.01.2026, passed in Special

Sessions Trial No.146 of 2019, State Vs. Sunny @ Sonu, by the

court of Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Judge,

Dehradun. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Sections

363, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced accordingly.

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.2 of 2026.

7. According to the FIR, on 17.04.2019, at 5:00 p.m.,

the victim left her house for market, but did not return. It is the

case of the prosecution that the appellant took her.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

statement of the victim is not reliable; she has not supported the

prosecution case in her cross examination; she has not been

declared hostile; the prosecution has not cross examined her;

there is no forensic as well as electronic evidence against the

appellant.

9. These facts are not disputed by learned State

Counsel.

10. Having considered this and other attending

factors, we are of the view that it is a case in which the execution

of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged

on bail.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. The sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

13. 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.) 18.03.2026

Ravi Bisht