Uttarakhand High Court
Mahesh Prasad vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 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. 01 of 2025)
In
CRLA No. 685 of 2025
Mahesh Prasad ..... Appellant.
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .... Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the Appellant.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.
3. The matter is fixed for hearing on the Bail Application of
the Appellant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Bail
Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2025).
5. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the learned
Special Judge, POCSO Act, District Pithoragarh in Special
Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2024, titled State vs. Mahesh Prasad,
whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 74 of
the B.N.S., 2023 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year of
additional rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant has also been
convicted under Section 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and
sentenced to undergo one year of imprisonment along with a fine
of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two
months of additional rigorous imprisonment.The Appellant has
further been convicted under Section 352 of the B.N.S., 2023 and
sentenced to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo six months of additional
rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant has also been convicted
under Section 351(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and sentenced to
undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
one year of additional rigorous imprisonment. Lastly, the
Appellant has been convicted under Section 7 read with Section 8
of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo five years of
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year of
additional rigorous imprisonment.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant was on bail during the trial and never misused the
liberty granted to him. It is further submitted that the victim (PW-
3), in her statement, stated that the Appellant was beating dogs
which were fighting with each other; the dogs came near her and
when the Appellant tried to hit the dog with a stick, it
accidentally struck her knee. It is further submitted that the eye-
witness (PW-6), who had seen the incident, also stated that two
dogs were fighting and the Appellant was beating them with a
stick; however, PW-6 has neither corroborated the prosecution
version nor stated anything to the effect that the Appellant had
any “bad touch” with the victim, which casts serious doubt on the
prosecution case. It is also submitted that the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023
indicates tutoring and false implication of the Appellant. It is
further contended that a vague allegation such as “uncle bad
touched her” is insufficient to constitute an offence under the
POCSO Act. In short, there are material contradictions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses, yet the learned Trial
Court failed to extend the benefit of doubt to the Appellant. The
Appellant has thus been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the victim
(PW-3), PW-6, and PW-8 have, in their statements, sufficiently
established the involvement of the Appellant. It is further
submitted that the learned Court below, after considering the oral
and documentary evidence, has rightly concluded that the
Appellant, being a chowkidar of the school entrusted with the
safety of children, instead of discharging his duties, assaulted and
abused a minor student aged about 16 years. Accordingly, by
judgment and order dated 14.11.2025, the Appellant has been
convicted under Sections 74, 351, 115(2), and 352 of the B.N.S.,
2023 and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. It is thus submitted that
the Appellant is not entitled to any relief.
8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and
perused the material available on record. The allegations against
the Appellant are grave and serious in nature. The accusation
pertains to inappropriate physical contact with a minor victim.
The nature of the offence and the position of the Appellant prima
facie indicate a serious breach of trust.
9. Considering the gravity of the offence, the vulnerability of
the victim, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal,
this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Appellant on bail at this
stage.
10. Accordingly, the Bail Application is rejected.
11. List this case on 30.06.2026.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
15.04.2026
Shiksha