Raavish vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2264 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Raavish vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail Application
                               In
             Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2024

Raavish                                                ...... Appellant

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                  ..... Respondent

Present:
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nipush Mola 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 05/06.01.2024, passed in Special

Sessions Trial No.19 of 2022, State Vs. Raavish, by the court of

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

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

convicted under Section 376(2)(n) and Sections 5(l)/6 and 5(j)(ii)/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 Application (IA) No.1 of 2024.

5. According to the FIR, the appellant and the victim

came close to each other through some social media platform. The

appellant established physical relations with the victim under the

pretext of marriage. Subsequently, the victim came to know that,

in fact, the appellant was already married.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that the appellant is in custody for more than 5

years; in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, and in the court also, the victim has

stated that she and the appellant were in romantic relationship;

there is no Forensic Science Laboratory report.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that the victim

was minor on the date of incident; the appellant was 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. 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 that, in fact, the appellant did conceal multiple facts

with the victim, like he was married having a child, and he

belongs to a different religion.

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.) 23.03.2026

Ravi Bisht