Uttarakhand High Court
Rahul Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 September, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ALOK MAHRA
20TH SEPTEMBER, 2025
BAIL APPLICATION (IA NO.1 OF 2023)
in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2023
Rahul Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief
Holder and Mr. Chitrarth
Kandpal, Brief Holder.
Corum: Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
(Per : Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J.) Appellant - Rahul Singh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fourteen years along with a fine of Rs.60,000/-; he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, and, he has been further convicted and sentenced to 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC vide judgment dated 06.10.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.09 of 2021. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the prosecutrix had died in a motor accident ten years ago. After the death of her husband, she has been residing with her two children at her in-law's house. Last four-five years ago, appellant, her nephew, forcibly made physical relations with her in her room. He was forcefully maintaining physical relations with her continuously for last four-five years. He told her that he has made her video.
3. Heard Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State.
4. Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate contended that the father of the applicant had died. The prosecutrix wanted to grab the property of the applicant and hence she has falsely implicated the appellant. Dan Singh, the brother-in-law of the deceased (Jeth), lived in the room to the West of the room where the prosecutrix resided and her father-in-law used to reside in the East of her room. Therefore, in the light of the said facts, the statements of the prosecutrix 3 cannot be believed while the alleged video has not even been produced. The medical examination does not support the case of the prosecution.
5. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder for the State has opposed the bail application.
6. Having regard to the circumstance of the present case and without expressing any opinion as to the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant during the pendency of this appeal.
7. The Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2023) is allowed.
8. Let the appellant -Rahul Singh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
____________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA .J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dated: 20.09.2025 BS