Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/368/2016 on 13 July, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLA No. 368 of 2016
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel
for the appellant.
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
This Appeal has been preferred against
the judgment & order dated 22.08.2016
passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions
Judge, Dehradun in Session Trial No. 69 of
2012, whereby the appellants/applicants
have been convicted under Section 498A
read with Section 34, 304-B read with
Section 34 of I.P.C. and 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and sentenced for three
years rigorous imprisonment & fine of
`2,000/- under Section 498A read with
Section 34 of IPC.; ten years rigorous
imprisonment & fine of `5,000/- under
Section 304B read with Section 34 of I.P.C.;
five years rigorous imprisonment & fine of
`50,000/- under Section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and sentence for one year
rigorous imprisonment & fine of `2,000/-
under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This is third bail application filed by
the applicant - Smt. Santosh (appellant no.
2). Earlier, she had jointly filed second bail
application with appellant no. 1 (Sandeep)
being CRMA No. 1781 of 2019. Her prayer
for grant of bail was rejected on the ground
that she has not undergone half of the
sentence, while appellant no. 1 (Sandeep)
was granted bail on the sole ground that he
has undergone five years, five months and
fourteen days of incarceration till
14.08.2020, excluding the period of
remission, as against the total sentence of
ten years given to him by learned trial
court.
Learned counsel for the applicant had
submitted that applicant has already
undergone more than half of the sentence,
therefore, she is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. He further submitted that the
applicant was sentenced to ten years of
rigorous imprisonment and she has
completed more than 5 years inside the jail.
On 11.06.2021, learned counsel for
the State was asked to get the latest jail
record regarding custody of appellant no. 2
(Smt. Santosh). Thereafter, on the request
of learned State counsel time for seeking
instructions was extended vide order dated
08.07.2021.
Today, Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned
counsel for the State has made a statement
that applicant - Smt. Santosh has
undergone total sentence of five years and
two months (without remission) as on
12.06.2021.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel
for the applicant submits that the appeal is
not likely to be heard in near future, as this
appeal was filed in the year 2016, while
criminal appeals filed in the year 2006 are
yet to be listed for final hearing. He further
submits that applicant is entitled to bail in
view of the provision contained in Section
436-A of Cr.P.C. He further submits that
since the sentence awarded to the applicant
and also her role, as per trial court's
judgment, is similar to appellant no. 1
(Sandeep), therefore, appellant no. 2 (Smt.
Santosh) is entitled to parity with Sandeep
(Appellant No. 1) for grant of bail.
Having regard to the period spent in
jail by the applicant, the third bail
application (CRMA No. 9536 of 2021) is
allowed. Let the applicant - Smt. Santosh,
be released on bail during pendency of this
appeal on her executing a personal bond
and furnishing two reliable sureties of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
13.07.2021
Aswal
