CRLA/294/2016 on 5 May, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/294/2016 on 5 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                   COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               Bail Appl. No.1 of 2022
                               In
                               CRLA No.294 of 2016
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. Mr. Piyush Singh Sammal, learned
counsel holding brief of Mr. Ram Singh
Sammal, learned counsel for
appellant/applicant.

2. Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi, learned
AGA for the State.

3. This appeal against conviction has
been filed by the appellant challenging
judgment and order dated 31.08.2016,
passed by Special Judge (POCSO)/Fast
Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge,
Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions
Trial No.04 of 2016, whereby appellant
has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 377 and 506
of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under
Section 377 IPC, 7 years rigorous
imprisonment for offence under Section
506 IPC and 12 years rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

4. Today, matter is listed on first bail
application.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that alleged eyewitnesses
have not been examined; prosecution
has not offered any explanation for non-
examination of alleged eyewitnesses;
medical examination specifically provides
that no definite opinion can be given
about unnatural sex; appellant has
served more than 8 years and 9 months
upon conviction and with remission,
period of incarceration is 11 years, 5
months and appeal is not likely to be
heard in near future. He argued that no
reason or aggravating circumstances
exist for denial of bail to the appellant at
this stage.

6. Learned State counsel opposed the
bail application by contending that
appellant has committed heinous
offence. However, he has admitted that
appellant has undergone 8 years, 10
months and 1 day as on today and with
remission, he served 11 years, 5 months
and 21 days.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly
the fact that the appellant has served a
considerable period in jail upon his
conviction, we are of the opinion that a
case for bail at this stage is made out.

8. Accordingly, bail application is
allowed. Let the applicant-Inder Singh,
be released on bail, subject to the
condition of his furnishing a personal
bond with two reliable sureties, each of
the like amount, to the satisfaction of
court concerned.

9. List in due course.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
05.05.2025
Arti