SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

G. NARENDAR, ALOK MAHRA
Rampal – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel, Ms. Manisha Bhandari, petitioner, party-in-person with Mr. Shashwat Sidhant and Ms. Ishita Dhaila, learned counsels
For the State of Uttarakhand:Sri J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General with Sri Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder
For the Complainant in CRLA No.100/2024: Sri Siddhartha Bankoti and Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The bail order cites absence of evidence indicating penetrative sexual assault as grounds for bail. (!) (!) - Medical examination showed no signs of forceful sexual assault and there was no definitive forensic link to the accused; conviction under Section 5(l) of POCSO deemed unsustainable. (!) (!) (!) - Court suspended conviction and granted bail, setting terms including personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and potential release considerations. (!) - Victim’s testimony and evidence were scrutinized, with findings that victim turned hostile and 164 CrPC statement not marked as exhibit; concerns raised about place of occurrence and forensic evidence. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses welfare and rehabilitation considerations for the victim and child, exploring Article 142 powers and potential alternatives to sentencing. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The order notes the victim’s current circumstances, including employment and dependence, and the impact of custody on the family. (!) (!) - The bail IA was allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence stood suspended. (!)

What is the grounds for bail in the absence of evidence of penetrative sexual assault?

What is the court's reasoning for grant of bail despite POCSO conviction findings?

What are the factors considered for releasing the appellant on bail and suspending conviction?


ORDER

G. Narendar, CJ.—Heard Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant in CRLA No. 100/2024, Ms. Manisha Bhandari, petitioner, party-in-person in WPPIL No. 114/2024, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned DAG for the State and Mr. Siddhartha Bankoti & Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsels for the victim.

2. The matter was heard yesterday and the victim was present and fervently pleaded to the Court to positively consider the bail application of the appellant/ applicant. On interaction with the victim, it has come out that the victim is presently working in Dehradun and living alone to financially support herself, and also finance the legal battle on behalf of her husband, who is undergoing incarceration. The victim claims that she is working as a housemaid and earning Rs.12000/-. She claims that she, and the appellant/ applicant are natives of a far off Village Jakhol in District Uttarkashi. That the trauma she is undergoing, is on account of the application of the law, and she is reduced to a hapless position, on account of the judgment of conviction and sentencing of her husband by the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the complainant, i.e. the victim’s father, that on 01.01

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top