CRJA/59/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 3401 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  CRJA No. 59 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Ravi Shankar Kandpal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A., for the State of Uttarakhand.

While admitting the Criminal Appeal, the appellant was granted bail on the basis of the statistics provided by the judgment of conviction, which showed, that the appellant has served sentence ever since, when he was taken in custody i.e. since 1st June, 2020, and it reflects, that he was not released on bail.

That was one of the prime factor, which was considered by the Court to grant bail to the applicant, because owing to the term already served, major part of the sentence has already been served, as a consequence of the judgment of conviction, i.e. three years as provided therein.

But, according to the custody certificate, which had been issued by the Senior Superintendent, District Jail Authority, Dehradun, the appellant, in fact, has only served 9 months and 5 days of sentences, and that does not commensurate to the argument extended by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time when the Bail Application was being considered, when the Appeal was admitted.

It is absolutely a misleading statement made by the counsel for the purposes of procurement of bail, which is deprecated.

Hence, while rejecting the Modification Application No. 3 of 2023, the part of the order dated 9th May, 2023, granting bail to the present appellant owing to the aforesaid condition, would too hereby stand recalled.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 08.11.2023 Shiv