Uttarakhand High Court
Ashif vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 July, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
UKHC010167522025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
in
Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2025
Ashif --Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Presence:-
Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the State.
With
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
in
Criminal Appeal No. 619 of 2025
Imran --Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Presence:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Ms. Anmol Sandhu,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the State.
With
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
in
Criminal Appeal No. 620 of 2025
Rizwan --Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
1
UKHC010167522025
Presence:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Ms. Anmol Sandhu,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
These three appeals arise from one common judgment and
order dated 23.09.2025/25.09.2025, passed in Special Sessions
Trial No.135 of 2019, State vs. Ashif and Others, by the court of
Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTSC (POCSO), Dehradun.
By it, the appellant-Ashif has been convicted under Sections 363,
366A, 376(3), 506, 120B of IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and appellants, Rizwan
and Imran have been convicted under Sections 363, 366A and
120B of IPC and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced accordingly. Therefore,
these three bail applications are decided together. The appellants
seek bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. According to the FIR, the appellant Asif enticed the
victim, a younger girl, took her along with him for some galatkam.
He also extended threats to the victim and her family members.
According to prosecution, appellants, Imran and Rizwan helped
appellant Asif in his misdeed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Asif submits that in
fact the victim is legally wedded wife of the appellant, they had
solemnized marriage, Nikah was done, Nikahnama was read over,
2
UKHC010167522025
which has been proved. In addition to that, he submitted that in
fact the statement of PW3 with regard to the date of birth of the
victim is not reliable. According to PW3 based on a TC of a Bareilly
school which is Ex-P3, the date of birth was recorded in the school
record. But it is argued that DW3, the Principal of Bareilly school
has falsified exhibit-P3, as according to him at serial number 5085
of the certificate Ex.P3, name of victim is not recorded, instead
there is some other person enrolled in that school.
5. Referring to the statement of PW2, the victim, it is
argued that according to her, she did not study in any Samaj
Kalyan Evam Bal Utthan Junior High School, Semi Kheda, Bareilly,
whereas she stated that she studied earlier in Shiva School, and
the document of Shiva School has been proved by DW1 revealing
date of birth of the victim as 12.01.2001, so the victim was major
on the date of incident and the document which has been filed by
the prosecution with regard to date of birth of the victim are self-
contradictory, and they have been belied by the defense witnesses.
6. Learned counsel for Imran and Rizwan would submit
that they have no role, they have not committed any offence.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that the argument that
has been made by learned counsel for Asif with regard to the
documents position is not disputed, but she submits that victim
has denied her marriage with the appellant Asif.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a
case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and
the appellants be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail applications are allowed.
10. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the
3
UKHC010167522025
pendency of the appeal.
11. The appellants, namely, Ashif, Imran and Rizwan
released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on their
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties,
each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
12. List this case in due course.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.07.2026 14.07.2026
JKJ/
4
