Uttarakhand High Court
Sachin vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
02ND MAY, 2025
Fourth Bail Application No.15595 of 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2016
Sachin .....Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Nandan Arya, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. R.K.
Joshi, learned Brief Holder.
With
Second Bail Application No.1256 of 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2016
Omraj Singh .....Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Nandan Arya, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. R.K.
Joshi, learned Brief Holder.
With
Bail Application No.01 of 2025
IN
CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2020
Neeraj Singh Bisht .....Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Lata Negi, learned Amicus
Curiae.
Counsel for the State : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. R.K.
Joshi, learned Brief Holder.
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER :
(per Hon’ble Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
These three appeals have arisen from a common
judgment and order dated 26.09.2016/ 29.09.2016, passed by
learned Special Judge (POCSO)/ Fast Track Court/ Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Special
Sessions Trial No.24 of 2015.
2. Criminal Appeal No.341 of 2016 will be treated as a
leading case.
3. The appellant- Sachin has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
twenty years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376D
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC“); he has been
convicted for the offence under Section 363 IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-; he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 366 IPC; he has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with
a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 342
IPC, and; he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years along with a
2
fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 120B IPC. All the sentences
have been directed to run concurrently.
4. The appellant- Omraj Singh has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
twenty years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 376D IPC; he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section
363 IPC; he has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 366 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of
Rs.2,000/-; he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC, and;
he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of twenty years along with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. All
the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
5. The appellant- Neeraj Singh Bisht has been convicted
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
twenty years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 376D IPC; he has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 342 IPC and has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along
3
with a fine of Rs.1,000/-; he has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 120B IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years with a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, and; he has been further convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and has been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of
Rs.2,000/-. All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
6. The first bail application of the appellant- Sachin was
rejected on 02.03.2017. The second bail application was rejected
on 02.11.2020, and the third bail application was rejected on
22.07.2022.
7. The first bail application of the appellant- Omraj Singh
was dismissed as not pressed on 03.08.2021.
8. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.07.2015, the
appellants took the prosecutrix on motorcycle and ran away
through the streets; they kept the school bag of the prosecutrix,
aged about 13 years, near the wall of the house, after that, they
broke the door of a truck and took her inside the truck. They tied
her hands and legs and committed gang rape.
9. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants- Sachin and Omraj Singh, contended that CCTV was
installed near the place of alleged incident, but the appellants
4
were not seen in the CCTV footage. The appellants have served
more than nine years of their sentences. The appellant- Sachin
was granted short-term bail in the present appeal. The conditions
of short-term bail were not violated by him.
10. Ms. Lata Negi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant-
Neeraj Singh Bisht, contended that the medical report did not
support the case of the prosecution. PW7 Dr. Manju Rawat has not
given any opinion regarding rape. In fact, she has stated that in
absence of any spermatozoa in the pathological report, she is
unable to give any opinion with regard to any sexual assault. The
appellant has been in judicial custody since 05.07.2015. There are
material contradictions in the statements of the alleged victim.
The sample collected by the doctor (PW7) was not sent for
forensic examination.
11. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State has opposed the bail applications.
12. Criminal Appeal Nos.341 of 2016 and 375 of 2016 are
pending since the year 2016 and Criminal Jail Appeal No.25 of
2020 is pending since the year 2020, and the present appeals are
not likely to be heard within a reasonable period. The appellants
have already undergone a significant portion of their sentences.
5
13. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case
and the period of incarceration suffered by the appellants, the
appellants ought to be granted bail.
14. The Bail Applications (IA No.15595 of 2024, IA No.1256
of 2023 and IA No.01 of 2025) are allowed. The appellants shall
be released on bail provided they submit a personal bond and two
reliable sureties of the same amount, by each one of them, to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court on the condition that they shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of this case and they shall
not leave the country without the previous permission of the
Court.
15. A copy of this order be placed on the records of the
connected appeals.
16. List these appeals in due course.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.)
Dated: 02nd May, 2025
NISHANT
6
