Vikramjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2415 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Vikramjeet 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. 496 of 2024

Vikramjeet Singh                                          ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                  ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, 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 08/12.08.2024, passed in Special

Sessions Trial No.447 of 2021, State Vs. Vikramjeet, by the court

of FTSC/Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge

(POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the

appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 363, 366 IPC

and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, 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, the victim left her home on

11.05.2021 without intimating to anyone, and did not return.

Subsequently, it is the prosecution case that it is the appellant

who enticed her and took her away.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

both the appellant and the victim were in romantic relationship;

they wanted to marry, but the family members of the victim were

not agreeable to it. Thereafter, she left her home and they both

married in a temple. It is argued that, subsequently, in the court,

the victim has changed her stance, but still, she has stated that

she and the appellant both were married.

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