[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Dilawar Singh 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. 602 of 2024
Dilawar Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, 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 14.08.2024, passed in Special Sessions
Trial No.03 of 2019, State Vs. Dilawar Singh, by the court of
Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTSC (POCSO),
Dehradun. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section
376 IPC and Section 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. The victim was staying in a hostel in Dehradun.
The appellant was his local guardian. The FIR records that on
24.03.2018, the appellant took the victim from the hostel and did
commit rape with her. He did so on multiple occasions; threatened
and beaten up the victim.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt; there is a DNA report, but it cannot be read into evidence
because the custody has not been proved; the person, who
collected the blood, has not been examined; according to the
hostel register, the victim was taken from hostel on 22.03.2018
and not on 24.03.2018, as stated in the FIR. In addition to it, it is
also argued that the appellant is a diabetic patient.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that, in fact, the
trial court record reveals that the blood sample was taken in the
presence of the court, and the court had forwarded the sample on
the same date; the victim has supported the prosecution case, and
she has not stated that on a particular date the victim was raped
by the appellant, instead, she has stated that over a period of time
when the appellant took the victim from the hostel, the appellant
raped her.
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 supported the prosecution case
that it is the appellant, who took her from the hostel on
24.03.2018, and till 02.05.2018, he committed rape on her on
multiple occasions.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant could not
indicate even any suggestion to the victim, who has been
examined as PW2, with regard to the discrepancy of the date when
the victim was taken by the appellant from the hostel. Be it as it
may, even the victim has not stated that on a particular date, the
act was done. According to her, over a period of time, this act was
committed by the appellant.
11. Having considered, this Court does not see any
ground, which may entitle the appellant to bail. Accordingly, the
bail application deserves to be rejected.
12. The bail application is rejected.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
25.03.2026
Ravi Bisht
