Uttarakhand High Court
Fareed vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2023
With
Bail Application (IA) No.3 of 2023
Fareed ..... Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The revisionist proposes to challenge his
conviction and sentence under Sections 411 IPC
recorded in Criminal Case No. 333 of 2017, State Vs.
Tasim and Another, by the court of Judicial Magistrate,
Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"), on
01.10.2019, and, judgment and order dated 10.09.2021,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2019, Fareed Vs.
State of Uttarakhand, by the court of First Additional
Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
by which the order dated 01.10.2019, passed in the
case, has been upheld. It is delayed. A Delay
Condonation Application (IA No.02 of 2023), along with
Bail Application (IA No.3 of 2023) has also been filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. It is the case of the revisionist that based
on one recovery, two cases were planted against him. In
two separate trials, he was convicted under Section 411
IPC. One of his convictions has already been challenged
in CRLR No.57 of 2023, in which the delay has been
condoned, the revision has been admitted and the
revisionist has also been granted bail because the
revisionist claims that he was a child in conflict with law
on the date of incident.
4. In fact, in CRLR No.57 of 2023, preferred
by the revisionist against his conviction and sentence
under Section 411 IPC, delay was condoned on
20.03.2023, and, by an order today, the revision has
been admitted because the revisionist has taken a plea
that he was a child in conflict with law on the date of the
alleged incident. The Court has also directed the
Registrar Judicial to conduct an enquiry.
4. In view, thereof, the delay in filing the
revision is condoned. The delay condonation application
is allowed.
5. Admit.
6. Call for LCR.
7. List this matter for final hearing on
06.07.2023 along with CRLR No.57 of 2023.
8. Heard on Bail Application (IA No.3 of 2023).
9. The revisionist has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 411 IPC. It is being submitted
on behalf of the revisionist that he was a child on the
date of incident. The record, in this case, reveals that the
date of incident is 24.08.2012. In fact, in CRLR No.57 of
2023, lower court record had already been placed before
the Court, in which it was found that in the year 2018,
the revisionist had revealed his age as 22 years at the
stage of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. If it is so, does it mean that in this case also, on
the date of alleged incident, which is 24.08.2012, the
revisionist was 16 years of age?
10. Having considered, this Court is of the view
that the revisionist is entitled to bail during the
pendency of the revision. Accordingly, the bail
application deserves to be allowed.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. The execution of impugned sentence shall
remain in abeyance during the pendency of the revision.
13. 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.
14. In this revision, which is against conviction
and sentence of the revisionist under Section 411 IPC,
as recorded by the trial court and confirmed in the
appeal, a plea has been taken that the revisionist was a
child in conflict with law.
15. In another case (pertaining to CRLR No.57 of
2023) in his statement recorded on 10.12.2018, under
Section 313 of the Code, the revisionist did reveal his
age as 22 years. The date of incident is 24.08.2012.
Does it mean that the revisionist was 16 years of age on
the date of incident? In the revision, the revisionist has
filed an application dated 10.09.2021, which, according
to the learned counsel for the revisionist, the revisionist
wanted to file in the court of appeal, which was not
accepted. The revisionist has also filed the school leaving
certificate of the revisionist purported to have been
issued from some school in Udham Singh Nagar.
According to it, the date of birth of the revisionist is
02.08.1997.
16. Let the Registrar Judicial of this Court
conduct an enquiry and submit a report with regard to
the age of the revisionist on the date of incident.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
31.03.2023
Ravi Bisht
