Heera v. Bharat Singh

Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, as well as Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred with the prayer to allow this application and release the appellant on bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 1946 of 2023; titled State vs. Heera, arising out of Case Crime No. 318 of 2023, under Sections 354, 376AB/511 IPC and Section 5M/6/18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun, arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

02.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Budaun, whereby he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376AB/511 IPC and Section 5M/6/18 POCSO Act and sentenced for maximum 10 years rigorous imprisonment, and further prays to stay realization of fine during the pendency of appeal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly, victim was minor aged about 7 years at the time of incident. Appellant has not 2 CRLA No. 7983 of 2025 committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the said case. There are material contradictions amongst the FIR version as well as statements of the prosecution witnesses. There are material improvements in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was given by her on the suggestion of a lady police. He submits that there was no injury was found on the person of the victim.

Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court did not appreciate the material evidence on record in proper way but convicted and sentenced the appellant for a maximum period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 5M/6/18 POCSO Act, with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. During trial, appellant was on bail and did not misuse liberty of bail. Applicant/appellant is in jail since 02.08.2025. Since hearing of appeal is also not likely to be completed in near future, therefore, request to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of appeal. On the other hand, Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that the appellant/applicant has committed a heinous crime and the victim was minor aged about 7-8 years at the time of incident. Next, learned AGA has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim (PW-1) in her chief examination, to submit that statement of P.W.- 1 (victim) clearly reveals the involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident.

He further submits that during trial, she supported the prosecution version and is specific allegation against applicant/appellant. He prays that application for bail be rejected. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, and learned AGA for the State. Considering the submissions made by the parties, totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, as well as findings recorded by the trial court in the judgment and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant/appellant on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. Order on Appeal 3 CRLA No. 7983 of 2025 Office is directed to prepare paper book. List after three months alongwith trial court record for hearing. February 9, 2026 Brijesh (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)