High CourtsSingle Bench

Adesh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 15 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 UK CK 0077

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 418 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 346 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.11.2021/23.11.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.S.C., Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2020 “State Vs. Adesh”, whereby, the appellant-Adesh has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and, he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for the offence under Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2.

Heard Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3.

Admit.

4.

Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted, on the bail application, that the appellant was a student of ITI at the time of the alleged incident; he was falsely implicated in the present matter; at the time of the alleged incident, his age was around 19 years; there are material contradictions in the evidence, adduced by the prosecution; the appellant has no criminal history; he is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and he was on bail during the trial and the conditions of bail were neither misused nor violated.

5.

The State has not filed objection to the bail application, even availing sufficient opportunity to file the same. The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application orally.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant-Adesh, provided he submits a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.

7.

The Registry is directed to prepare the paper books and supply the same to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.

8.

List this matter on 06.09.2022.