CRLA/445/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3500 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
Sl. No   Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     IA No.01 of 2022 (Bail Application)
                                     In
                                     CRLA No.445 of 2022
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. T.C. Agarwal, D.A.G, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Admit.

Summon the lower court records. The appellant, herein, is a convict for the commission of the offence under section 363 of the IPC, which stood culminated by the judgment dated 29/30.09.2022, as passed by the court of FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Special Sessions Trial No.75 of 2021, "State Vs. Manjeet", whereby the present appellant was found to be a guilty for the commission of the offence under section 363 of IPC, and as a consequence thereto, he has been sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs.30,000/- has been imposed.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the bail application, that the appellant has been falsely implicated, apart from the fact that the evidence, which is on record, do not make out a prima facie case under section 363 of IPC. He further argues that he has got no criminal antecedents, apart from the fact that he was on bail during trial, and he has never misused the same. Coupled with the fact that out of the total sentence of three years, he has already served the sentence of about eight months and five days, out of the total sentence of three years.

Considering the aforesaid backdrop, the appellant is directed to be released on bail, subject to the furnishing of his personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court concerned.

However, it is made clear that the release of the appellant, would be subject to the condition of depositing of 50% of the penalty amount, as imposed by the impugned judgment.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 03.11.2022

NR/