IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT

Dated- 7th May, 2024

Criminal Appeal No.834 of 2023

Naveen Nautiyal ….....Appellant

Versus
State of Uttarakhand .….Respondent
Presence:-
Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. A.G. with Mr. Rakesh Kr. Joshi, learned
B.H. for the State.

Judgment- (Per Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.]

Despite service of notice, neither there is any

representation on behalf of the informant nor any
objection to the bail application has been filed, though
time for that purpose, as sought for, was granted by this
Court vide order dated 19.03.2024 to Mr. Arun Pratap
Shah, learned counsel who appeared for informant on
said date.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [to be referred to ‘SC/ST Act’ for
brevity] challenging the order dated 14.09.2023 passed
by learned Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Second
Bail Application No.112 of 2023 (Naveen Nautiyal v.
State) passed in respect of Special S.T. No.94 of 2022
arising out of Crime/FIR No.01 of 2022 registered with
Revenue Outpost-Junga, District Uttarkashi, whereby
the second bail application moved by appellant was
rejected.
 2

3. Appellant is under incarceration in connection

with aforesaid crime. It is contended by learned Counsel
appearing for appellant that a named FIR was lodged
against him by mother of informant-victim alleging
commission of sexual assault against her minor
daughter. In the first information report, it is stated that
on 04.09.2022, the victim, aged about 16 years, went to
the nearby forest for grazing sheep, where the appellant,
a resident of Village Kumarkot, came drunk and started
misbehaving with informant’s daughter. It is further
alleged that her daughter was alone and none was there
around, and taking advantage of situation, appellant
held both hands of victim and misbehaved with her. It is
further alleged that the victim was thrown on the ground
by appellant, but somehow, she managed to escape from
his clutches and ran away from the spot. In the said
incident, victim sustained injuries on her right hand
besides below her waist. In the first information report, it
is also alleged that appellant called her with caste
indicative words and threatened to ruin her family.

4. It is contended by learned Counsel for

appellant that on the basis of above, initially, the Chick
report for offences u/s 354, 323, 506 IPC, Sections
3(1)(x) of the SC/ ST Act and Sections 4/5 of the POCSO
Act was registered, but subsequently, the charge-sheet
was filed including Section 376(3) IPC. It is further
submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated and
the version of first information report does not support
the allegation of rape or sexual assault upon the victim
at the hands of appellant. It is further argued that
connected appeal being CRLA No.190 of 2023 (Pavitra
Devi v. State) is also pending before this Court, wherein,
 3

proceedings of Special S.T. No.94 of 2022 ‘State v.

Naveen Nautiyal’ has been stayed. On the one hand, the
trial is stayed while on the other, appellant is under
incarceration in a false case.

5. Per contra, learned Dy. Advocate General

appearing for State submits that charge-sheet was
submitted against appellant u/s 376(3) IPC on the basis
of evidence. So far as CRLA No.190 of 2023 is concerned,
it is submitted that the said appeal is filed against the
order dated 10.03.2023 regarding denial of framing of
charge u/s 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It is informed by
learned Deputy Advocate General that now the said
charge has been framed against the appellant and thus,
according to him, the said appeal has rendered
infructuous.

6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties

and on a perusal of record, it is reflected that in
connected CRLA No.190 of 2023, some more issues are
involved which can be adjudicated only after hearing the
parties.

7. At this stage, having considered the version of

the prosecution in which the allegations against the
appellant were only qua misbehaving with the victim;
also the fact that the first information report was lodged
primarily u/s 354 IPC; and more particularly for the
reason that the proceedings of S.T. No.94 of 2022 (State
v. Naveen Nautiyal) have been stayed by the Co-ordinate
Bench in CRLA No.190 of 2023 by order dated
11.04.2023, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
appellant at this stage.
 4

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Appellant- Naveen Nautiyal is directed to be enlarged on
bail in connection with the afore-mentioned crime, on his
executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties,
each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned.

9. Since the present appeal is filed by the

appellant seeking bail only, hence this appeal stands
disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

07.05.2024
Rdang