Ankit vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 March, 2026

Uttarakhand High Court

Ankit vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               IA No.01 of 2023 For Bail Application
                                     In
               Criminal Appeal No. 681 of 2023
Ankit                                                       ...... Appellant

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                      ..... Respondent


Present:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Coram:        Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

SPONSORED

The instant appeal has been preferred against

judgment and order dated 19/20.09.2023, passed in Sessions

Trial No.260 of 2021, State Vs. Ankit and Another, by the court of

FTSC/Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By

it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections

376D and 323 IPC.

2. Heard.

3. This appeal has already been admitted.

4. The LCR has already been received.

5. List in due course for final hearing.

6. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.01 of 2023.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that there is no evidence against the appellant;

the victim is more than 30 years of age; she has not supported the

prosecution case during trial; she has been declared hostile;

merely because in a cell phone, recovered from the father of the

appellant, some video footages have been received, in which co-
2

convict and the victim have been seen coming out of a sugarcane

field, conviction has been recorded.

8. Learned State Counsel admits this fact, but

according to him, the victim has supported the prosecution case

in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it

is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended

and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. The sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

12. Let 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.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
31.03.2026

Ravi Bisht