Uttarakhand High Court
Amit Sharma And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 30 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.232 of 2024
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024
Amit Sharma and others ...........Revisionists
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ......... Respondents
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Manisha Thakur,
Advocate for the revisionists.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the
State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate for respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 12.03.2020, passed
in Criminal Case No.423 of 2020, State vs. Amit
Sharma and others, by the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar (for short,
"the case"), by which, the revisionists have been
convicted under Section 323, 325 IPC and
sentenced as follows:-
(a) Under Section 323 IPC - to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six
months with a fine of `1000/-. In default
of payment of fine, to further undergo
additional simple imprisonment for a
period of seven days.
(b) Under Section 325 IPC - to undergo
imprisonment for a period of three years
with a fine of `5000/-. In default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of one
month; and
(ii) Judgment and order dated 16.02.2024, passed
in Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2021, Amit Sharma
and others vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the
court of Third Additional Sessions Judge,
Haridwar. By it, the conviction has been upheld
and the sentence has been reduced to three
months simple imprisonment.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
revisionists would submit that it is a case, in which, the
revisionists would be released on probation. She would
submit that to the extent of examining the sentence
awarded to the revisionists, the revision may be admitted.
3. Sentence is always subject to discussion.
4. The informant of the case has also filed Criminal
Revision No.199 of 2024 for enhancement of sentence. It
has already been admitted on 21.03.2024.
5. Having considered, instant revision is admitted to
the extent of examining the correctness of sentence.
6. LCR is already available. The respondent no.2 is
represented.
7. List along with CRLR No.199 of 2024 for final
hearing on 09.05.2024.
8. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024.
9. The revisionists have been sentenced under
Sections 323, 325 IPC by the trial court. The conviction
has been upheld by the appellate court, but the sentence
has been reduced to three months' imprisonment.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
revisionists would submit that all the family members are
in jail. The revisionist no.3 is unwell; he is 63 years of age;
he is suffering with gangrene in his leg; he has a lot of
problem; he cannot sit or walk; all the revisionists were on
bail during the trial or appeal; there is no male member in
their family. Therefore, it is argued that the revisionist
nos.1 and 3 may be released on bail.
11. It is argued that the revisionist no.1 deserves to
be released on bail, so that he may take care of his father,
revisionist no.3. They have already served more than 1½
months of their imprisonment.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would
submit that the bail application of the revisionist no.2 may
be rejected.
13. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the revisionists would submit that she does not want to
press the bail application of revisionist no.2.
14. Learned State counsel, under instructions,
would submit that as per report, the revisionist no.3, Satya
Prakash Sharma is unwell. He has undergone surgery. He
is admitted in the jail hospital. He is unable to stand and
walk and cannot do his daily routine work without any
support.
15. Since, the bail application of revisionist no.2 is
not pressed, it is rejected accordingly.
16. Having considered the entirety of facts, this
Court is of the view that the revisionist no.1 (Amit Sharma)
and revisionist no.3 (Satya Prakash Sharma) are entitled to
be released on bail during the pendency of the revision.
Accordingly, the bail application of revisionist nos.1 and 3
deserves to be allowed.
17. The bail application of revisionist nos.1 and 3 is
allowed.
18. The execution of sentence challenged in the
revision qua revisionist nos.1 and 3 shall remain
suspended during the pendency of this revision. Let the
revisionist nos.1 and 3 be released on bail, during the
pendency of this revision, 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.
19. List on the date fixed.
20. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the court
concerned and concerned jail through such mode that the
revisionist may not be unnecessarily detained in this case
any further.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
30.04.2024
Sanjay
