CRLA/398/2019
2022 Latest Caselaw 4110 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA
             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
                        21st DECEMBER, 2022

        IA No. 2305 of 2022 (Second Bail Application)
                             In
            Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2019
Between:

Sanjay Alias Sanjeev Saini                      .......... Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand                             ......Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate.

Counsel for the State : Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State.

With

IA No. 2303 of 2022(Second Bail Application) In Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2019 Between:

Ramesh Saini                                    .......... Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand                             ......Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant      : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the State              : Mr. J.S. Virk,
                                     Deputy Advocate General
                                     assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal,
                                     Brief Holder for the State.
                               With

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the following judgment:

(Per: Sri Alok Kumar Verma, J.)

These are the Second Bail Applications. First

Bail Applications were rejected on 29.09.2020.

2. The appellants, namely, Sanjay alias Sanjeev

Saini and Ramesh Saini have been convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 20 years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each for the

offence punishable under Section 376 D of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC"), and, in default of payment of

fine, they have been directed to undergo further simple

imprisonment for a period of two years; they have been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354A

IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine

of Rs.5,000/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, they

have been directed to undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six months; they have been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354B

IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of

Rs.5,000/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, they

have been directed to undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six months; they have been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC

and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year, and, they have been

further convicted for the offence punishable under Section

323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and have been sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year

each. All the sentences have been directed to run

concurrently.

3. Heard Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the

appellant - Sanjay alias Sanjeev Saini, Mr. Sanjay Kumar,

learned counsel for the appellant - Ramesh Saini and Mr.

J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr.

P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

4. Objection, filed in the Court today by the learned

Deputy Advocate General, is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, submitted

that the prosecutrix did not support the case of the

prosecution; the alleged video clipping, produced by the

prosecution, is not admissible in evidence since no

certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 has been produced; the appellants are on bail during

the trial and the conditions of bail were neither misused nor

violated by them, they have no criminal history and they

are the permanent resident of Laxmipur Patti P.S. Kashipur

District Udham Singh Nagar.

6. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy

Advocate General opposed the bail application. However, he

fairly conceded that the prosecutrix did not support the

prosecution case and no certificate of Section 65B of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was produced.

7. In Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2019, the co-

accused - Govinda, whose case stands on the same footing

as that of the present appellants, namely, Ramesh Saini

and Sanjay alias Sanjeev Saini, has already been granted

bail by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, in which, one of

us, namely, Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J., is a Member. We

apply the principle of parity.

8. The Second Bail Applications (IA Nos.2305 and 2303

of 2022) are allowed.

9. Let the appellants, namely, Sanjay Alias Sanjeev

Saini and Ramesh Saini be released on bail on their executing a

personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the

like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. List these Appeals on 26.04.2023 for final disposal.

11. A copy of this order be placed on the record of

Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2019.

12. Urgent certified copy of this order be provided to the

parties, as per Rules.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 21.12.2022 Pant/SB