Uttarakhand High Court
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2023
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
Jaswant Singh ........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant revision, the following
judgments and orders are to put to challenge:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 24.01.2015,
passed in Criminal Case No.767 of 2014,
State Vs. Jaswant Singh (Case Crime
No.474 of 2000), by the court of Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class/2nd Additional Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar, District
Haridwar (for short, "the case"). By it, the
revisionist has been convicted under
Section 420 IPC and sentenced for two
years' simple imprisonment and a fine of
`1,000/. In default of payment of fine,
imprisonment for a further period of three
months.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 09.12.2022,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2015,
Jaswant Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand
and another, by the court of 1st
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Haridwar, District Haridwar (for short,
"the appeal"). By which, the appeal has
been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the revisionist
executed an agreement to sale in favour of PW2 Laxmi
Narayan Mishra. The agreement was further extended, but
subsequently, the sale-deed was not executed.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that, in fact,
subsequently, it was revealed that the property does not
belong to the revisionist.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the charge against the revisionist is that he was not the
owner of the property-in-dispute whereas, it is argued that in
para 17, the trial court has recorded that there is no
document, which could prove that the revisionist is not the
owner of the land.
6. In each case, breach of agreement does not
amount to cheating. In the extended agreement, it is the
prosecution case itself that the revisionist had recorded that
he has some dispute with BHEL. Does it mean that PW2
Laxmi Narayan Mishra was aware of the nature of the
property?
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
this matter requires deliberation.
8. Admit.
9. Call for the LCR.
10. List for final hearing 20.04.2022.
Bail Application (IA) No. 1 of 2023
11. Heard on bail application.
12. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
the revisionist is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail
application deserves to be allowed.
13. The bail application is allowed.
14. The execution of sentence appealed against shall
remain suspended during the pendency of this revision. Let
the revisionist be released on bail, during the pendency of
this revision, 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.)
11.01.2023
Sanjay
