Uttarakhand High Court
Mohan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 26 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 287 of 2024
With
IA No.1 of 2024 for Bail and Suspension of Sentence
Mohan Singh ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 03.10.2018,
passed in Criminal Case No. 250 of 2017,
State Vs. Mohan Singh, by the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikas
Nagar, District Dehradun ("the case"). By it,
the revisionist has been convicted under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and
sentenced as hereunder:-
(a) Under Section 420 IPC, to undergo
four years' rigorous imprisonment
along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In
default of payment of fine, to
undergo imprisonment for a period
of one month.
(b) Under Section 467 IPC, to undergo
five years' rigorous imprisonment
along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to
undergo imprisonment for a period
of two months.
(c) Under Section 468 IPC, to undergo
five years' rigorous imprisonment
along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to
undergo imprisonment for a period
of two months.
(d) Under Section 471 IPC, to undergo
five years' rigorous imprisonment
along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to
undergo imprisonment for a period
of two months.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 05.04.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2018,
Mohan Singh Vs. State, by the court of
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikas
Nagar, District Dehradun ("the appeal"). By
it, the conviction and sentence of the
revisionist, as recorded by the trial court, has
been confirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. It is the case of the revisionist that he took a loan
and mortgaged the property, but the factum of mortgage
could not be recorded in the revenue record, and,
thereafter, subsequent sale was made.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also
submit that the revisionist did not commit any offence; he
has not cheated the complainant.
5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
this matter requires deliberations.
6. Admit.
7. In order to appreciate the arguments on
admission, let call for the LCR.
8. List this matter for final hearing on 13.06.2024.
Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2024
9. The challenge in this revision is made to
judgment and order dated 03.10.2018, passed in Criminal
Case No. 250 of 2017, State Vs. Mohan Singh, by the court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar,
District Dehradun ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has
been convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC,
and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. The challenge
has also been made to the Judgment and order dated
05.04.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2018,
Mohan Singh Vs. State, by the court of Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun ("the
appeal"). By it, the conviction and sentence of the
revisionist, as recorded by the trial court, has been
confirmed.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist has been on bail throughout during trial
or in appeal.
11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
the revisionist is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail
application deserves to be allowed.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. The execution of sentence appealed against shall
remain suspended until the conclusion of the revision.
14. 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 and also
subject to the deposition of fine.
(Ravindra Maithani,J.)
26.04.2024
Ravi Bisht
