Uttarakhand High Court
Rohit Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.01 of 2024 For Bail and Suspension of Sentence
Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2024
Rohit Pal ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Present:
Mr. Himanshu Pal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, 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 25/26.07.2024, passed in Sessions
Trial No.55 of 2021, State Vs. Rohit Pal and others, by the court of
FTSC/Additional Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been
convicted under Sections 363, 376(3) and 376(2)(n) IPC and
Sections 3(a)/4(2) and 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced accordingly.
2. Heard.
3. This appeal has already been admitted.
4. The LCR has already been received.
5. List on 10.06.2026, for final hearing.
6. Heard on Bail and Suspension of Sentence
Application (IA) No.01 of 2024.
7. According to the prosecution case, the victim, a
young girl of 14 years of age, left her house on 19.02.2019, at
2:40 pm. She was not traceable thereafter. A report was lodged.
According to the prosecution case that, in fact, under deception,
the victim was taken at a separate place by the appellant and
others. The appellant took her along with him and raped her on
multiple occasions.
2
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there are gross contradictions in the statements of the witnesses;
the statement of the victim is not reliable; the prosecution has not
been able to establish that the victim was a child on the date of
incident; PW4, the Principal of the school has been examined. He
has proved the documents, but as such, the basis of date of birth
recorded in the documents has not been proved by the
prosecution.
9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the appellant has relied upon the principles of law, as laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1579, by which
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in view of the competing documents,
has held that, “the deposition of the School’s Headmaster,
especially to the effect that the birth-date was noted as per
an oral representation by the father, makes the said
certificate unreliable.”
10. Learned State Counsel submits that the victim
and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
11. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the
discussion 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.
12. PW4 is the Principal of the school where the victim
was studying. He has not only proved the school record, but the
admission form, which was submitted by the father of the victim
at the time when she was admitted in the school, and according to
it, the date of birth of the victim is 11.04.2005.
13. In the case of Suresh (supra), in fact, there were
two more documents with regard to the age of the victim, i.e the
voter list as well as the medical report.
3
14. The victim has narrated the story as to how she
had come to meet some other person, to whom she could not meet
on 19.02.2019. She took a rickshaw, but the rickshawala took her
to some other place where the appellant and some other persons
surrounded her, and the appellant took her at a house and raped
her on multiple occasions. She stayed with the appellant for a
long period. According to the victim, she was 14 years of age on
the date of incident, and when she was examined, she was 16
years of age.
15. PW4 is the Principal of the school where the victim
studied. The victim has also stated about the school where she
studied. He has not only proved the certificate with regard to the
date of birth of the victim, but also the school registers as well as
the admission form submitted by her father, in which the date of
birth of the victim is recorded. These documents and these
aspects will be examined in detail at the time of final hearing of
the appeal.
17. Having considered, this Court does not see any
ground, which may entitle the appellant to bail. Accordingly, the
bail application deserves to be rejected.
18. The bail application is rejected.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.04.2026
Ravi Bisht
