Rajkumar And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3705 UK

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No.384 of 2022
                           With
              Bail Application No. 1 of 2022
Rajkumar and others                             ...Revisionists

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand                             ...Respondent

Present:-
            Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by
            Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate for the revisionists.
            Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
            Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate for the informant.

                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant revision is preferred against the judgment

and order dated 22.12.2017, passed in Case No. 2911 of

2014, State Vs. Rajkumar and others by the court of the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District

Haridwar ("the case"). By which, the revisionist has been

convicted and sentenced under Sections 394 IPC as well as

the judgment and order dated 04.07.2022, passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2018, Rajkumar and others Vs.

State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 1st Additional Sessions

Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar ("the appeal"). By which,

the judgment and order passed in the case was affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned senior counsel for the revisionists that

the revision has already been admitted. There have been lot

of issues raised in the trial, which has not been appreciated.

There are grave errors.

4. In fact, while admitting the revision, an issue was

raised with regard to non compliance of provisions of

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Learned counsel would submit that the

revisionists and the informant belong to the same village.

The revisionist are from one family only.. It is highly

improbable that such incident of loot could be done by the

four members of the family against a villager. Lastly, it is

submitted that out of three years imprisonment, the

revisionists have already undergone about five months

imprisonment.

6. Learned counsel for the informant would submit

that from the possession of the Rajkumar a revolver was

recovered.

7. On a pure question of law, the revision has been

admitted, which shall be heard finally.

8. Having considered the submissions, this Court is

of the view that the revisionists are entitle to bail.

Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be allowed.

9. The execution of sentence challenged in this

revision shall remain suspended during the pendency of this

revision. Let the revisionist are released on bail on executing

personal bond and furnishing to reliable sureties by each

one of them of the like amount to the satisfaction of the

court concerned.

10. List this matter on 17.03.2023 alongwith CRLR

No. 655 of 2022.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 21.11.2022 Jitendra