Uttarakhand High Court
Virendra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 July, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
UKHC010142542024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
In
Criminal Jail Appeal No.69 of 2024
Virendra ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned DAG along with Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
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 08/09.08.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial
No.168 of 2019, State Vs. Virendra, by the court of FTSC/Additional
Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By it, the appellant has
been convicted under Sections 363, 366A, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 120B &
506 of IPC and Sections 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced accordingly. The appellant seeks
bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. According to the FIR lodged by the father of the victim, a
young girl of 15 years had left her home some 5-6 days prior to the
lodging of the FIR to visit her brother, but she did not reach there. A
suspicion was raised that it was the appellant who had enticed the
victim.
2
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire
prosecution case is false and that the prosecution has not been able
to prove the age of the victim. The father and mother of the victim
were examined before the court, but they did not support the
prosecution case. According to them, the victim had already married
one Rohit on 19th April 2019, when she was 20 years of age. It is
argued that, in fact, the husband of the victim was examined as
DW2, and he also stated that, when he married the victim, she was
more than 18 years of age. They were delivered a child on 6th
December 2020.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that the prosecutrix has
supported the prosecution case and that this is not a fit case for bail.
6. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the discussion
is not expected of. The presumption of innocence is not available to
the appellant because it is bail post conviction. 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
and in any other matter.
7. Fact remains that the parents of the victim have not
supported the prosecution and have stated that the victim had
already been married to Rohit prior to the date of the incident, when
she was a major. In fact, DW2, Rohit, was also examined, and he
claimed that he and the victim had married when the victim was
above 18 years of age. This witness was not cross-examined by the
prosecution on the aspects of the marriage, etc.
8. Having considered, 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.
9. The bail application is allowed.
3
10. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the
pendency of the appeal.
11. The appellant- Virendra 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.
12. List this case for final hearing in due course.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
28.07.2026 28.07.2026
BS
