Uttarakhand High Court
Aleem ………Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 2024
Aleem .........Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Akram Parvez, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2024
Ajruddin alias Arju .........Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........... Respondent
Present : Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani. J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since both these appeals arise from a common
judgment and order, they are heard together.
2. Instant Criminal Appeals are preferred by the
appellants Aleem and Ajruddin alias Arju, against the judgment
and order dated 12.08.2024 and 14.08.2024, passed in Special
Sessions Trial No.17 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand vs. Aleem and
another, by the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/District and
Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. By it, the appellant Aleem and
2
Ajruddin alias Arju have been convicted under Sections 363, 366-A,
376-DA IPC and Sections 5(g)(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”) and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii),
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the SC/ST Act”) respectively
and sentenced under Sections 363, 366-A IPC, Sections 5(g)(l)/6 of
the Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The
appellants Aleem and Ajruddin alias Arju seek bail during
pendency of these appeals.
3. Heard on Bail Applications.
4. The victim left her home on 17.01.2022, but she did
not return and on the next day the FIR was lodged. Subsequently,
it was the case of the prosecution that the victim and the appellant
Aleem were in relationship; the appellant Aleem established
physical relations with the victim and one day i.e. on 17.01.2022,
he called the victim in his home, established physical relations with
her and, thereafter, called the appellant Ajruddin alias Arju, who
also established physical relations with the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during
trial, the victim has not stated anything about the appellant
Ajruddin alias Arju for establishing any physical relations. With
regard to the appellant Aleem, she has stated that she was in
friendship with him. It is also argued that, in fact, in Forensic
Science Laboratory Report, there were mix DNA of both the
appellants in the pubic hair of the victim, but the victim has not
3
stated anything against the appellant Ajruddin alias Arju. Hence, it
is argued that these are the cases fit for bail.
6. Learned State Counsel does not dispute these facts,
but she submits that the Forensic Science Laboratory Report
supports the prosecution case.
7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this
stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy
the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation
made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of
the case.
8. The victim has stated that she was in relationship with
the appellant Aleem and in so far as the appellant Ajruddin alias
Arju is concerned, she has not stated anything against him in her
examination before the court with regard to establishing physical
relations with the victim.
9. Having considered this and other attending factors, this
Court is of the view that it is a case, in which, the execution of
sentence should be suspended and the applicants/appellants be
enlarged on bail.
10. The bail applications are allowed.
11. The execution of sentence, which is under challenge in
these appeals shall remain suspended during the pendency of the
appeal.
4
12. Let the applicants/appellants be released on bail,
during pendency of the appeals on their executing a personal bond
and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by
each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
13. List in due course.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
25.02.2026
Sanjay
