Uttarakhand High Court
Akeel vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 December, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2020
Akeel ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Appellant Akeel has preferred an appeal against the judgment and orders dated 26.11.2020/27.11.2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2018, State vs. Akeel, by the court of Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Haldwani, District Nainital. By the impugned judgement and orders, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application has already rejected on 15.03.2022. Thereafter, the appellant sought short term bail on the ground of his illness.
3. Earlier a report from the panel of doctors was received from Dr. Susheela Tiwari Government Hospital, 2 Haldwani, District Nainital. According to it, the applicant is suffering with "Tumor" as per MRI Head Report, for which, he is under treatment from Neuro Surgery Department. Report also records that the applicant is also suffering "Cholestasis" and for which, surgery may be considered only after anaesthesia clearance. The applicant has been referred to AIIMS Delhi or AIIMS Rishikesh by the doctors.
4. Now again, appellant has sought bail. A report has been sought from jail. It is reported that the appellant was got examined at AIIMS Delhi on 24.11.2022. The doctor examined CEMRI SELLA REGION and suggested brain surgery. Central Jail also reports that since computer server of AIIMS Delhi were not properly working on the aforesaid date, therefore, surgery could not be done.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant is seriously unwell. He should be released on bail, so that he may get himself treated.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that appellant is really unwell.
3
7. Having considered the medical condition and the nature of illness, with which the appellant is suffering, this Court is of the view that during pendency of this appeal, the sentence appealed against by the appellant should be suspended and he should be released on bail.
8. The bail application (IA No. 7/2022) is allowed.
9. The sentence, appealed against, by the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal. Let the appellant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
10. List this matter on 31.03.2023.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.12.2022 AK