Uttarakhand High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 May, 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. 02 of 2025)
In
CRLA No. 683 of 2025
Suresh Kumar --- Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Ms. Sudha Tamta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
Appellant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The matter is fixed for hearing on the Bail Application of the
Appellant.
4. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 01.09.2025/08.09.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/District and Sessions Judge,
Tehri Garhwal, in Special Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2019 (FIR No.
23 of 2018), titled “State vs. Suresh Kumar and Another“, under
Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered
at Police Station Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal, whereby the
learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/District and Sessions Judge,
Tehri Garhwal convicted the Appellant under Section 363 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. The Appellant
was further convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to
undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
one month’s simple imprisonment. The Appellant was also
convicted under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to
undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.
5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three
months’ simple imprisonment. The period of detention undergone
by the Appellant during incarceration, if any, shall be adjusted
towards the sentence awarded. All the sentences shall run
concurrently.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Bail Application
(I.A. No. 02 of 2025).
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 there is no direct, cogent or reliable
evidence to prove the alleged act of abduction or sexual assault, as
alleged by the prosecution. Furthermore, it is contended that the
version of the prosecution is inconsistent, as the initial FIR was
registered against another accused, namely Suraj, while the present
Appellant was later implicated during investigation without any
substantive basis or independent corroboration. It is also submitted
that the Appellant has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to
abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the
Bail Application and submitted that the victim was a minor and,
therefore, her consent has no legal sanctity. It is further submitted
that there are statements of the victim wherein she categorically
stated that the present Appellant established physical relations with
her. Learned State Counsel further submits that the learned Court
below, after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence,
came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that the Appellant
has committed a grave and heinous offence and, therefore, is not
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused
the material available on record. The allegations against the
Appellant are serious in nature and pertain to offences under the
POCSO Act against a minor victim. At this stage, considering the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the evidence
available on record, this Court does not find any sufficient ground
to suspend the sentence and enlarge the Appellant on bail.
9. Considering the gravity of the offence 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 (I.A. No. 02 of 2025) is
rejected.
11. List this case on 13.07.2026.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
20.05.2026
Shiksha
