Mukesh Alias Munna vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2401 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mukesh Alias Munna 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. 706 of 2024

Mukesh Alias Munna                                        ...... Appellant

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                  ..... Respondent

Present:
Ms. Sukhwani Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. 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)

The instant appeal has been preferred against

judgment and order dated 19/20.09.2024, passed in Special

Sessions Trial No.26 of 2020, State Vs. Mukesh @ Munna, by the

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

Dehradun. By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced

under Section 376 IPC.

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, the victim, a young girl, left

her home on 19.01.2020 early in the morning, but she could not

be traced. Subsequently, it was revealed that the victim has gone

with some boy to Delhi. According to the prosecution case, it is

the appellant, who took her away.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

during investigation, the victim has stated that she was in

romantic relationship with the appellant, but during trial, she has

not supported the prosecution case at all when examined as PW6;

on the basis of detection of DNA on the clothes of the victim,

conviction has been held, which cannot be recorded without any

corroborative evidence.

8. These factual narrations are not 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