Sumit Singh Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2394 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sumit Singh Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 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. 229 of 2024

Sumit Singh Panwar                                        ...... Appellant

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                  ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Himanshu Pal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.

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 28/30.03.2024, passed in Special

Sessions Trial No.18 of 2019, State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and

another, by the court of Additional District Judge/FTSC, District

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

376(AB) IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced accordingly.

2. Heard.

3. This appeal has already been admitted.

4. List in due course for final hearing.

5. Heard on First Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024

6. According to the FIR, on 11.10.2018, the victim, a

young girl, complained to her teacher that her father has done

badtameezi and chedchad twice with her. The Principal got the

FIR lodged. The victim was examined under Section 164 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), where she

reiterated this version. When she was medically examined, she

reiterated the same thing. But when she was examined in the

court, she did not support the prosecution case. She was declared

hostile. In her cross examination, on behalf of her father, who was

then the accused, the victim revealed that it is the appellant, who

did galat kaam with her. Thereafter, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the appellant was summoned under

Section 319 of the Code, and he has been convicted.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

entire prosecution case is false; according to the victim, the

appellant is her real maternal uncle, whereas, it is not so, which

is evident from the family register that has been filed by the

appellant; the statement of the victim is quite wavering; until she

was examined in the court, she did not name the appellant;

suddenly, in her cross-examination, she named the appellant.

Hence, it is a case fit for bail.

8. These factual narrations have not been disputed

by learned State Counsel.

9. 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.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. The sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

12. 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.) 25.03.2026

Ravi Bisht