Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

CRLA/211/2019
2022 Latest Caselaw 910 UK

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 910 UK
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2022

Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/211/2019 on 24 March, 2022
                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  CRMA No. 1848/2020(Bail Application)
                                  In
                                  CRLA No.211 of 2019
                                  Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.
                                  Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the private respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This is a Bail Application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C."). The appellant, namely Rajendra Singh, has prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. He has been convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No.91 of 2016, State Vs. Ranjeet Singh & Others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 & 34 IPC vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different terms including imprisonment for life with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The learned counsel for the appellant seeks bail of the appellant on the ground that the appellant is 75 years old man and he was granted bail by trial Court and also by this High Court on the ground that his eye-sight has become very week but during the pendency of the appeal and trial he did not misuse the conditions of the bail. He would further argue that the appellant was

not attributed with any overt act and it was only stated by the prosecution's witnesses that he was present at the spot and was holding a danda. The medical evidence shows that death of the deceased was caused by the gunshot injuries and no injury was found on the body which can be inflicted by the danda. Therefore, he argues that he may be granted bail.

The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submitted that two other persons who have been granted bail in this case during the stage of trial, namely, Pradhyut and Kara have allegedly committed murder of one of the witnesses to this case and the trial is pending against them.

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the complainant would argue that application seeking bail under Section 389 of the Code of the similarly situated persons has been rejected by this Court. Hence, there is no reason to grant bail to the present appellant-Rajendra Singh.

It is not disputed that the appellant is 75 years old and is suffering from low eye- sight. He was granted bail during the course of the trail. The prosecution does not state that he misused the liberty granted to him. He is permanent resident of Udham Singh Nagar; there is no reasonable chance of his absconding; and, that no overt act was attributed against him though liability has been fixed vicariously under Section 149 of the Penal Code.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion to suspend the sentence and grant him bail.

Hence, the Bail Application (CRMA/1848/2020) is allowed. The rd sentence awarded by the 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 is

hereby suspended as far as appellant- Rajendra Singh is concerned.

The appellant shall be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in the aforesaid case with further condition as under:-

i) He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the learned trial Judge till the disposal of the appeal.

ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without expressed or prior permission.

iii) If he has to go outside the State for the purpose of treatment, he will file application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which shall be considered on its merit.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (S.K. Mishra, ACJ.) 24.03.2022 SS/RB

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter