Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 203 (UTT)

Lalit Verma v. State Of Uttarakhand

2021-04-01

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2021, passed by the learned F.T.C. Court/Additional District Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2019 "State vs. Lalit Verma", whereby the appellant-applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. 3. Heard. 4. Admit. 5. Call for record. 6. Also heard learned counsel for the parties on Bail Application No.1 of 2021. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even according to the prosecution on the date when the alleged incident has taken place, the appellant was juvenile himself. Despite the fact that he was juvenile and inspite of the fact that the prosecutrix herself had left her house, the appellant has been imposed with a punishment of twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. Secondly, the prosecutrix herself has turned hostile and has denied the fact that there was any physical contact between her and the appellant, during the time when she was with him for three days. Thirdly, since according to the prosecutrix, she had left the house due to the ill treatment from her parents, a more liberal view should have been taken by the learned trial court. According to learned counsel, the learned trial court failed to consider the mitigating circumstances which were in favour of the appellant. The learned trial court has unnecessarily imposed a harsh punishment of twenty years upon the appellant. Lastly, the life of a young boy, presently aged 19 years, would be thoroughly ruined, if he were kept in the jail for a period of twenty years. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that a liberal view should be taken in the present case. 8. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed the grant of bail by this Court. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits and de-merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant-applicant-Lalit Vemra S/o Chotelal. The appellant-applicant be released on bail provided he submit a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/-, and two reliable sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court concerned. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits and de-merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant-applicant-Lalit Vemra S/o Chotelal. The appellant-applicant be released on bail provided he submit a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/-, and two reliable sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court concerned. He is further directed to observe the following conditions:- i. The appellant-applicant shall maintain peace and tranquillity during the pendency of the appeal. ii. The appellant-applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. iii. The appellant-applicant shall report to the jurisdiction of police on every Monday of each week of each month. 10. Accordingly, the Bail Application No.1 of 2021 is disposed of.