[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mayank Sharma Alias Pandit vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2025
Mayank Sharma alias Pandit ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2025
Ved Prakash Alias Mohit Alias Golu ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. 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)
Since both the appeals arise from the same
Sessions Trial Number, they are heard together.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred against
judgment and order dated 21/22.07.2025, passed in Special
Sessions Trial No.382 of 2020, State Vs. Ved Prakash alias Mohit
and others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellants have
been convicted under Sections 328, 326(A), 457, 376(DA) IPC, and
sentenced accordingly.
3. Heard.
4. These appeals have already been admitted.
5. List in due course for final hearing.
6. Heard on First Bail Applications (IA) No.1 of 2024
7. According to the prosecution case, in the
intervening night of 19/20.08.2020, at 12:00, the appellants and
two other persons entered into the house of the informant and
raped his daughter.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Ved Prakash
alias Mohit alias Golu submits that the entire prosecution case is
false; the FIR is much delayed; the victim was taken to hospital
next day in the morning; till then, FIR was not lodged; it is not
established by the prosecution as to how the appellant- Ved
Prakash alias Mohit alias Golu entered into the house of the
informant when the house was bolted from inside. He would refer
to the documents relating to the treatment of the victim to argue
that in the subsequent medical prescriptions, the diagnose is
recorded as suspected poisoning.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Mayank Sharma
alias Pandit submits that it is a false case; the appellant is the
driver of the uncle of the victim; it is he, who took the victim to
hospital; he has been falsely implicated due to some money
transactions between the parties.
10. Learned State Counsel submits that there were in
all four persons, who entered into the house of the informant and
raped his daughter, but she could identify two of them, who are
the appellants, as their masks had slipped; the victim has
supported the prosecution case; she was taken to hospital;
doctors have supported the case; there are other witnesses, who
have also supported the prosecution case.
11. 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.
12. The victim has stated as to how the incident took
place when she was raped by four persons. She became
unconscious. Next morning, she revealed the incident to her
family members. Her father, mother and others have supported
the case. There are medical prescriptions, which record that the
victim was not in her senses. She was unconscious when for the
first time she was taken to hospital. There were injuries on her
person.
13. Having considered, this Court does not see any
ground, which may entitle the appellants to bail. Accordingly, the
bail applications deserve to be rejected.
14. The bail applications are rejected.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
24.03.2026
Ravi Bisht
