Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. Dat
or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. e
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
Bail Application (IA No. 02 of 2025)
In
CRLA No. 476 of 2025
Aajad
--Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel and Mr. Mohd.
Alauddin, learned counsel (through video conferencing) for the
Appellant.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The matter is taken up for hearing on the Bail Application
filed by the Appellant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Bail Application
(I.A. No. 02 of 2025).
5. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned
F.T.S.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar
in Special Sessions Trial No. 166 of 2019 (Case Crime No. 85 of
2019), State vs. Aajad and Another, relating to offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 354 of IPC and Section
9(g) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Buggawala, District
Haridwar, whereby the learned trial Court convicted and
sentenced the Appellant under Section 363 IPC to undergo five
years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,500/-, and
in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional
simple imprisonment. Further, the Appellant has been convicted
and sentenced under Section 366A IPC to undergo five years’
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,500/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional
simple imprisonment. Further, the Appellant has been convicted
and sentenced under Section 354 IPC to undergo three years’
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,500/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional
simple imprisonment. Further, the Appellant has been convicted
and sentenced under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, to
undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.2,500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six
months’ additional simple imprisonment.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant remained on bail throughout the course of trial and
never misused the liberty so granted. It is contended that the
Appellant has been falsely implicated and there are independent
witnesses of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the
circumstances do not support the prosecution story in any manner
and the prosecution case is bereft of merit, creating serious doubt.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the Bail
Application.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering that the Appellant remained on bail
during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, this
Court is of the opinion that sufficient grounds exist for grant of
bail to the Appellant during pendency of the appeal.
9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. Let the
Appellant be released on bail during pendency of the present
criminal appeal upon executing a personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction
of the learned Court concerned.
10. It is made clear that grant of bail shall not be treated as a
ground for seeking unnecessary adjournments or delaying
disposal of the present criminal appeal.
11. List this case on 19.06.2026.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
29.04.2026
Shiksha
