Uttarakhand High Court
Kunal Alias Badal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2023
With
IA No.1 of 2023 For Bail Application
Kunal alias Badal ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been preferred against
judgment and order dated 04.09.2023, passed in Special Sessions
Trial No.28 of 2021, State Vs. Kunal alias Badal, by the court of
Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC, Haridwar. By it, the appellant
has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 376(2)(n),
376(3), 452, 506 IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
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.1 of 2023.
7. According to the FIR, on 25.12.2020, at 5:00 in
the morning, the appellant entered into the house of the victim,
molested and raped her, due to which, she was in shock.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
entire case is false; soon after the FIR, the victim was examined by
the Doctor, where she did not state about any rape having been
committed on 25.12.2020, instead, she said that on 04.10.2020,
2
two persons took her forcibly in the house of the appellant, where
the appellant raped her; under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the victim has clubbed multiple
instances, and in court, she tells that on 04.10.2020, it is the
appellant, who took her away and raped her; the statement of the
victim is wavering; how the room was opened by the appellant, it
is not clear. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.
9. Learned State Counsel submits that the victim has
supported the prosecution case; the victim was minor on the date
of incident.
10. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the
discussion, at this stage, is not expected of. Arguments are being
appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this
order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the
proceedings.
11. Admittedly, according to the FIR, the incident took
place on 25.12.2020, but when examined by the Doctor, the
victim revealed that on 04.10.2020, two persons took her in the
house of the appellant, where the appellant raped her. She did not
speak of the incident of 25.12.2020. What she said then to the
Doctor is that on 25.12.2020, she revealed about the earlier
incidents to her parents. In court, subsequently, the victim tells
that on 04.10.2020, it is the appellant who took her away and
raped her, and, thereafter, continued raping her on multiple
occasions.
12. If the act was committed on 25.12.2020, as stated
in the FIR, the question is as to who unlocked the door? How the
appellant came inside the house of the victim? This and many
3
more questions would find deliberation during the hearing of the
appeal.
13. Having considered the statement of the victim 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
appellant be enlarged on bail.
14. The bail application is allowed.
15. The sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
16. 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.)
18.02.2026
Ravi Bisht
