Uttarakhand High Court
Imran vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 August, 2025
RESERVED ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Mr. ALOK MAHRA
BAIL APPLICATION (I.A. NO.3 OF 2023)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 321 of 2021
Imran. ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
(Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for
the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand)
Reserved on :07.08.2025
Delivered on :14.08.2025
ALOK MAHRA, J.
ORDER
This is an Appeal under Section 374(2)
Cr.P.C. against the judgment & order dated 31.08.2021
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial
No.150 of 2019, whereby appellant has been convicted
under Section 376(2)(n), 376(3), 452 and 506 of I.P.C.
and Section 6 of POCSO Act and was awarded
maximum punishment of 20 years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of ₹20,000/-. The fine was also
awarded under the other sections, in which appellant
was convicted. It was directed that all the sentences
shall run concurrently. The appellant has sought his
release on bail.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that
Altap (father of the victim) lodged an F.I.R. on
18.07.2019 at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar,
with the averments that Imran S/o Hasam, resident of
his village, about 40-45 days back at night around
12:00 O’clock entered in his house and committed rape
with his daughter, who is aged about 13 years and
threatened her not to disclose anyone at home, due to
which she did not inform at home; that 4-5 days back,
in the night, Imran again came, but family members
saw him and, thereafter, he fled away; that his
daughter informed him about the incident, which took
around 40-45 days back. He made a request to lodge
a complaint and take legal action in the matter.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
would submit that P.W.-1 (victim) neither in her cross-
examination nor in examination-in-chief have deposed
that appellant forcefully made physical relations with
her; that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
fact that there are major contradictions between the
statements of the prosecution witnesses; that at the
time of alleged incident, appellant was major and
prosecution have failed to produce any evidence against
the appellant that he had made physical relations with
2
the victim forcefully except the biological evidence; that
learned trial Court have committed a gross illegality by
not appreciating the defence evidence and disbelieved
the same; that prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charge against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
4. Admittedly, there are no ocular witnesses.
The conviction is based on the strength of the
statement recorded by the victim. The translated
version of the cross-examination of the victim, on which
heavy reliance in placed by learned counsel for the
appellant, is reproduced below:-
“Stated on oath that my village is Habibpur
Kurdi. I was born in Habibpur Kurdi village.
There is a Government School in Habibpur
Kurdi village. I studied in that school. I took
admission in Class-1. When I took admission,
I was 7 years old. My date of birth was
written by the Teacher himself at the time of
admission. I don’t know how old I am now.
Then said that I must be 16-17 years old. I
had come with the police to give my
statement before yesterday. When my first
statement was recorded, I gave it on the
instructions of the Police. On seeing the
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., the victim said that this is the same
statement that I had given under the
pressure of the Police. They had said that
they would send my parents to jail. Police
never took my statement. Police did not take
any of my blood samples or clothes. I know
Imran only because he is from the village.
Imran (present in court) never came to
my house. Accused-Imran (present in
court) has never done anything wrong
with me. I never had any relations with
Imran. When I used to go to the field to
collect grass, a boy did wrong thing with
me. That boy was not Imran. That boy3
was not from our village, so I do not know
him. I did not disclose about my pregnancy
to the Court yesterday due to fear of my
parents. I and Imran did not enter into any
agreement. I did not disclose anyone at
home that an unknown boy had done
something wrong with me because I was
afraid of disclosing it my parents. If that boy
appears in front of me, I will not be able to
recognize him. On seeing the accused
(present in the court), she said that he did
not do anything wrong with her. It is wrong
to say that I am not telling the truth in the
Court today. It is wrong to state that today I
am giving false statement in the Court.”
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
referred to the statements of P.W.2-Altaf (father of the
victim), wherein on oath he stated that he is illiterate;
that his daughter (victim) is 17-18 years old; that about
5-6 months ago, Imran did not do any wrong with his
daughter (victim) by entering the house at 12 o’clock in
the night nor did he threaten her; that the victim did
not tell him anything about this; that Imran did not
come to their house again nor did his son Ishar saw him
entering the house; that he did not give any application
against Imran in Kotwali Laksar; that when paper
number 4K/3 was read out, he said that he did not give
any such application in Kotwali Laksar; that he had put
his thumb impression; that he do not know what was
written on the paper on which he had put his thumb
impression and neither was it read out to him. Learned
Senior Counsel also referred to his cross-examination,
wherein, inter alia, he stated that Police Inspector did
not took his statement; that when the witness was read
out his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
he said that he did not give any such statement and as
to how the Police Inspector wrote, he cannot tell the
4
reason for this; that it is wrong to say that his daughter
(victim) is 13 years old and not 17-18 years old; that it
is correct to say that his daughter became pregnant and
her operation was done in Rishikesh; that he do not
know who did wrong to the victim due to which she
became pregnant; that it is wrong to say that Imran of
their village did wrong to his minor daughter due to
which she became pregnant; that they have not
reached a settlement with Imran; that it is correct to
say that the actual age of his daughter (victim) is 19
years; that he did not register the age of his daughter
(victim) in the school records; that victim’s school
master himself wrote victim’s age less on his own will;
that seeing the accused Imran present in the court, the
witness said that he never came to our house nor did
he register any case against him in any police station.
Confirmed after listening.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also
referred to the statement of P.W.8-S.I. Mamta Rani,
wherein, inter alia, she stated that she presumed the
age of the victim on the basis of T.C. of the victim of
her Class-6, 7, 8 and marksheet of Class-9 and that
neither she enquired about her Class-1 nor did she
obtain the age certificate.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further referred to
the statement of D.W.1- Sanjeev Kumar, who is In-
charge Principal of Government Primary School,
Habibpur, wherein, inter alia, he stated that, as per S.R.
Register, victim was admitted in Class-1 on 29.08.2005
and, on S.R. No.800, victim’s Transfer Certificate is
5
mentioned and her date of birth is mentioned as
20.02.2000.
8. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the
statement of D.W.2- Anurag Dutt, Village Development
Officer, Habibpur, who, in his testimony, inter alia,
stated that as per the Parivar Register, the year of birth
of the victim is mentioned as 2001.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submits that bare perusal of the aforesaid statement
would itself reveal that it was not the appellant who did
wrong with the victim. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that at the time of alleged incident, the victim was
major and learned trial Court erred in taking into
account that the victim was minor at the time of
incident and convicted him for the aforesaid offences.
10. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
vehemently opposed the bail application. He would
submit that learned trial Court relied upon the prima
facie evidence against the appellant and concluded that
ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2)(n),
376(3), 452 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO
Act are attracted and framed the charge accordingly.
He submitted that involvement of the appellant stood
revealed by the investigation and he has been convicted
after trial, based on reliable and believable evidence,
therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
11. This Court directed the learned Deputy
Advocate General to verify the age of the victim.
Today, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed a
copy of the document issued by Principal, Government
6
Primary School, Habibpur, Laksar, Haridwar, in which
the Principal has certified that, as per the Student
Admission Register of Government Primary School
Habibpur, Raisi, from the year 2001 to 2011 at SR No.
800, the name of the victim is mentioned and her date
of birth is 20.02.2000 and her date of admission is
29.08.2005 and the date of leaving the school is
19.04.2010 and that the victim has passed Class-V.
12. Having considered the rival submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and, in particular, tone
& tenor of the F.I.R. as well as the cross-examination of
the prosecutrix and also considering the fact that on
the date of incident, the victim was major and since the
Appeal is not liable to be taken up for hearing in near
future, prima facie, we are of the view that the
appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly,
the second bail application is allowed. The sentence
dated 31.08.2021 stands suspended.
13. Let the appellant-Imran be released on bail
during the pendency of Appeal, on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, if
not required in any other case.
14. List in due course.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Arpan
7