CRLR/732/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3899 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  CRLR No.732 of 2022
                                  With
                                  Bail Application IA No.1 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Pulak Agarwal, Advocate for the revisionist.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

Vide judgment and order dated 17.9.2019, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand for the offence under Section 279 IPC, to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand for the offence under Section 338 IPC. Appeal preferred by the revisionist against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court was partly allowed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2022, and conviction and sentence of the revisionist for the offence under Section 338 IPC was quashed. However, the conviction and sentence awarded for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC have been affirmed. Hence, the revisionist has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Admit.

Call for the scanned record of LCR. List this matter on 01.04.2023. Also heard on Bail Application IA No.1 of 2022.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was on bail during trial as well as during appeal and he never misused the liberty. He further submits that the statement given by SIMT Shiv Prasad (PW7) indicates that the brakes of the ill-fated car were not working properly, which led to the accident. However, that aspect has been overlooked by the learned courts below. Learned counsel further submits that the maximum jail sentence awarded to the revisionist is for two years.

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application and contended that the revisionist has been convicted after trial.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and without any comment on the final merits of case, the Court is of the opinion that the revisionist deserves bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the revisionist be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.12.2022

RV