Gurudev Singh And Another ..... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1121 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2023
                               With
                Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2023


Gurudev Singh and Another                          ..... Revisionists

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another                  ..... Respondents


Mr. Shubham Pandey, Advocate for the revisionists.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Brief Holder
for the State of Uttarakhand.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the followings:-

                (i)     Judgment            and      order      dated

                        15.04.2015,         passed     in    Criminal

Case No.419 of 2014, Sub-Divisional

Forest Officer, Terai West Forest

Division Vs. Satveer Singh and

Others, by the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar,

District Nainital, whereby the

revisionists have been convicted and

sentenced under Sections 2 (16 A,

B, 35), 9, 27, 30, 31, 38v (4-1), 39,

50, 51 C and 52 of the Wild Life

Protection Act 1972 ("the Act"), ("the

case). And;

(ii) Judgment and order dated

24.11.2017, passed in Criminal

Appeal No.92 of 2015, Gurudev

Singh and Others Vs. State and

Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Terai

West Forest Division, by the court of

Additional District Judge,

Ramnagar, District Nainital, by

which the order dated 15.04.2015,

passed in the case, has been

upheld.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists would

submit that nothing was recovered from the revisionists;

two co-accused were allegedly arrested by the Forest

Officers, and they named the revisionists.

4. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that this matter definitely requires deliberations.

5. Admit.

6. LCR has already been received.

7. List this matter for final hearing on

02.08.2023.

8. Heard on bail application (IA No.2 of 2023).

9. The instant revision has been preferred by

the revisionists against their conviction and sentence

under Sections 2 (16 A, B, 35), 9, 27, 30, 31, 38v (4-1),

39, 50, 51 C and 52 of the Act.

10. It is argued that nothing was recovered

from the revisionists; The alleged recovery was made

from the co-accused, and it is they, who named the

revisionists.

11. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that the revisionists are entitled to bail during the

pendency of the revision. Accordingly, the bail

application deserves to be allowed.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. The execution of impugned sentence shall

remain in abeyance during the pendency of the revision.

14. Let the revisionists be released on bail, on

their executing a personal bond and furnishing two

reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of

them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.04.2023 Ravi Bisht