Kalim @ Jabba vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 March, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Kalim @ Jabba vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 March, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

   HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
                          In
           Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2024

Kalim @ Jabba                                    ......Appellant

                            Versus


State of Uttarakhand                           ....Respondent


Present:
           Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
           Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment

and order dated 11.03.2024 passed in Special Sessions

Trial No. 17 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Kalim @

Jabba, by the court of Special Judge (POCSO)/ Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun. By it, the appellant

has been convicted under Sections 377 read with Section

511 IPC and Section 18 of the Protection of Children From

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”) and sentenced as

hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 18 of the Act, – to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of five

years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default

of payment of fine, to undergo simple
2

imprisonment for a further period of one

month.

(ii) Under Section 8 of the Act- to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of three

years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of

payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment

for a further period of two months.

The appellant has sought bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. State was required to file counter affidavit, but it

has yet not been filed.

4. According to the prosecution case, on 26.08.2018

at 8:00 in the morning, the appellant took the victim, a

young boy of eight year out from his house and sexually

assaulted him in an E-rickshaw.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the appellant is in custody for about a year. There was

enmity between the parties which has not been investigated

by the Investigating Officer and it has been admitted by

him. There is no independent witness. The Investigating
3

Officer has stated that he did not find the E-rickshaw at the

place of incident and no other independent person has

verified the incident.

6. The factual arguments have not been

controverted by learned State counsel.

7. Having considered the nature of offence and

other attending factors, this Court is of the view it is a case

in which the execution of sentence should be suspended

and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. The sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

10. 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.

11. List this matter on 12.06.2025 for final hearing.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
05.03.2025
Jitendra