Uttarakhand High Court
Shahnawaj vs Unknown on 20 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
21. COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
or proceedings
BA]
Date or directions
SL.
and Registrar's
No.
order with
Signatures
(Bail Appl. No.01 of 2024)
In
CRLA No.777 of 2024
Shahnawaj
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, (through V.C.) learned
counsel and Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel
for the Appellant/Applicant.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA for the
State.
3. Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the
Complainant appearing through V.C.
4. Present appeal is filed by the appellant
against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2024
passed by learned F.T.S.C./Additional Sessions
Judge Roorkee, District Haridwar in Special
Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2022 (Case Crime
No.654 of 2022) for the offence under Section
354-B IPC & Section 9m/10,11(i)/12 of Protection
of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012,
Police Station Kotwali Manglour, District
Haridwar. By the said judgment under Section
354-B of IPC appellant has been sentenced to five
years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default stipulation six months
additional simple imprisonment; under Section
9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act he has been sentenced
to seven years rigorous imprisonment alongwith
fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default stipulation one
year’s additional simple imprisonment was
imposed; under Section 11(i)/12 of the POCSO
Act, appellant has been sentenced to five years
rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default stipulation one year’s
additional simple imprisonment was imposed
upon him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that appellant has been falsely roped in the present
matter. During the court of trial he was enlarged
on bail and did not default the same. It is stated
that there was some dispute between the families
of the parties i.e. the complainant and appellant.
Though the appellant has been alleged to have
been accused of the offence that he disrobed the
minor girl child of seven years (victim) and also
disrobed himself in front of her and when the
victim’s cousin sister reached the place of
incident, he left abruptly.
6. There are no incident whatsoever by which
it can be said that the applicant sexually exploited
her; may it be a bad touch or a sexual assault. He
had been booked and convicted under Section
11/12 of the POCSO Act for non aggravated
sexual assault but it this too was also not well
founded and without any grounds that could relate
and link the applicant directly with the incident he
has been wrongly found guilty by learned lower
court. It is also submitted that during the course of
trial he had been granted bail and did not default
the same.
7. The bail application has been objected on
behalf of the State primarily with the conditions
that the matter relates to sexual assault against a
seven year girl child. The allegations are well
founded and accordingly, the court below passed a
conviction order against the applicant.
8. The victim herself has stated in her
statement specifically that the applicant disrobed
himself in front of the victim and disrobed the
victim thereafter and before he could proceed
further with any wrong intention of committing
any physical sexual activity against the minor girl
child her cousin sister Komal reached the scene of
crime and after that he left the place abruptly.
Regarding the incident that was found between
the family of the applicant and that of the victim,
this ground has also been denied by the learned
State counsel quoting it as irrelevant and made up
just to cover the acts of the applicant and this it is
requested that bail application be rejected.
9. After hearing the rival submission placed on
record, this Court does not find sufficient ground
for enlarging the applicant on bail. The ground for
bail as submitted by learned counsel for the
applicant that since he was enlarged on bail during
the course of trial and did not default the same,
the matter at this juncture as the applicant is in jail
under conviction for having sexually exploiting
the seven year girl child (victim).
10. The victim has categorically mentioned in
her statement of the act, so committed by the
applicant without any deviation influence and her
statement also does not appear to be tutored. Had
it been so, she would have exaggerated the
incident further by otherwise. Further she has
stated categorically in her statement that during
disrobed himself in front of her that itself is an
offence under the POCSO Act that comes within
the definition of sexual assault. Further she has
also stated in her statement that the appellant also
disrobed her. She further states that after the entry
of her cousin sister-Komal at the place of incident,
he left abruptly. The statement of the witness has
been corroborated by the eye witness named
Komal.
11. Thus, at this juncture, the grounds for bail
are not found to be sufficient, the bail application
stands rejected.
12. List this appeal on 30.06.2026.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
20.04.2026
Arti