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

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
G. Narendar, CJ. and Alok Mahra, J.
Rampal – Appellant
versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2024 with IA No. 01/2024 (Bail Application) with Writ Petition (PIL) No. 114 of 2024, Writ Petition (Crl) No. 658 of 2025, Writ Petition (Crl) No. 659 of 2025
Decided on 17.10.2025

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

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Absence of evidence indicating penetrative sexual assault, can be a ground for grant of bail.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Bail application – Case registered for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) of POCSO Act – Medical expert, apart from recording absence of hymen, has also recorded there was no sign of injury anywhere on her body or private parts – There is no finding by FSL that traces of semen found on FSL Report is that of appellant/applicant – Trial Court has not recorded place of occurrence or commission of crime – Medical examination does not disclose commission of sexual assault – Prima facie, finding of guilt, under Section 5(l), in absence of any evidence to even demonstrate penetrative sexual assault, is unsustainable – Appellant/ applicant has made out a case for grant of bail – Bail granted. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)

Result: I.A. allowed.

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 01.01.2022, the victim had left the house at 10:00 P.M., stating that she would be going to her grandfather’s house and sleep there, but it came to be known in the morning that she never reached her grandfather’s house, and that people submitted that the accused had come to the village with his car, and on that basis it was suspected that the victim had absconded with the appellant/ applicant. The jurisdictional police registered Crime No. 01/2022 and commenced investigation, and the victim was found in the company of the accused, near Arakot Bazar Bridge, and the appellant/ applicant was arrested on 23.01.2022; that the victim was medically examined by the Investigating Officer. The victim’s date of birth was affirmed on the basis of birth certificate obtained from the school, and the charge-sheet came to be filed into the Court on 25.02.2022, charging the appellant/ applicant for offences punishable under Sections 363 & 376(2)(n) of the IPC, and Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act.

4. This is not a case of insufficient evidence, but a case of no evidence at all. The dates recorded above would show that the victim was missing between 10.01.2022 and 23.01.2022, and the victim was found in the company of the appellant/ applicant and detained near Arakot Bazar Bridge. A reading of the impugned judgment does not record any proof, having been let in, demonstrating place of residence, be it in the form of a 3 residential house, or a hotel accommodation. In short, prima facie, there appears to be no evidence, as to where the crime was committed. In fact, in paragraph no. 24, the Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence of PW-4, has recorded that PW-4 victim has submitted that she did not meet the appellant/ applicant in the village on 10.01.2022. The Trial Court, in paragraph no. 23, has recorded as under:—

“23. After hearing the arguments of the learned advocates of both the parties and taking into due consideration the material available on record, it was found that the focus of the special session trial at hand is the evidence of the victim only. Because the victim has the sole knowledge of the fact of the victim going with the accused or the victim being taken by the accused. Due to which the victim can only tell under what circumstances, how and why the victim went with the accused or under what circumstances, how the accused took her with him and where he kept her during the period from 01.01.2022 to 23.01.2022 and where he committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault/rape with her? Therefore, in the case at hand, the evidence of the victim is being considered first.”

5. The fact remains that the victim turned hostile and denied any wrongdoing on the part of the appellant/ applicant. The Trial Court, in paragraph no. 27, has placed reliance upon the victi

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 Back to top