Bablu vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3250 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 459 of 2022
                                With
                 Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022


Bablu                                               ...... Revisionist

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another                ..... Respondents


Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. R.K. Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.



                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant revision has been preferred

against order dated 07.12.2021, of conviction recorded

in Criminal Complaint Case No.680 of 2019, Rajendra

Vs. Bablu, ny the court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Haridwar, by which the revisionist has been

convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act") and sentenced therein.

The appeal against it was also dismissed. Challenge is

also made to judgment and order dated 15.07.2022,

passed in Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2021, Bablu Vs.

State, by the court of Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar. Hence, the revision.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that in the instant case, the presumption under

Section 139 of the Act has already been rebutted by the

revisionist because there is no evidence that the

revisionist was paid Rs. 6 Lakhs as loan by the

complainant. It is argued that this fact has not been

appropriately appreciated by the court below. It is an

error in law.

4. Having perused the records, this Court is of

the view that this matter definitely requires

deliberations.

5. Admit.

6. Issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable

within 4 weeks.

7. Steps to be taken within a week.

8. List this matter for hearing on 06.01.2023.

9. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the revisionist was on bail during trial.

11. This revision has been admitted on the

question of as to whether the cheques, in question, were

given in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability.

12. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that it is a case fit for bail and the revisionist deserves to

be enlarged on bail.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the revisionist be released on bail, on his

executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of

the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.10.2022 Ravi Bisht