Uttarakhand High Court
Ramkumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 February, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No. 04 of 2023
In
Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2021
Ramkumar ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holders for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this appeal is made to the
judgment and order dated 09.11.2021, passed in
Session Trial No. 225 of 2016, State vs. Ram Kumar,
under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 ("the Act"), by the court of 4th
Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar ("the Act"). By
the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced under Section 304B,
498A of IPC and 3/4 of the Act. In this appeal, the
appellant has sought his bail.
2. This is second bail application. First bail
application has already been rejected on 28.03.2022.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that the total sentence imposed upon
the appellant is 10 years, but he has been in custody
for more than 5 years now. There are no chances of
appeal having been heard in the near future.
4. Learned State Counsel, under instructions,
would submit that appellant has undergone custody
in this case for a period of 5 years and 11 months and
22 days.
5. The first bail application was rejected by
this Court on 28.03.2022. Since then, the appeal has
not been taken up again.
6. The appellant has admittedly undergone
more than a half of the sentence awarded to him.
7. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022
SCC Online 825, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the aspect of delay in disposal of the
appeals and in paras 42, 43 and 44, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-
"42. Section 389 of the Code concerns itself with
circumstances pending appeal leading to the release of the
appellant on bail. The power exercisable under Section 389
is different from that of the one either under Section 437 or
under Section 439 of the Code, pending trial. This is for the
reason that "presumption of innocence" and "bail is the
rule and jail is the exception" may not be available to the
appellant who has suffered a conviction. A mere pendency
of an appeal per se would not be a factor.
43. A suspension of sentence is an act of keeping the
sentence in abeyance, pending the final adjudication.
Though delay in taking up the main appeal would certainly
be a factor and the benefit available under Section 436-A
would also be considered, the courts will have to see the
relevant factors including the conviction rendered by the
trial court. When it is so apparent that the appeals are not
likely to be taken up and disposed of, then the delay would
certainly be a factor in favour of the appellant.
44. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main
appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred under
Section 436-A of the Code among other factors ought to be
considered for a favourable release on bail."
8. Having considered the facts and as the
appellant has already undergone for more than half of
the sentence and also taking in the view that the
appeal has not been taken up for a long and there are
less chances of its' hearing in near future, this Court
is of the view that the appellant deserves to be enlarge
on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. The sentence appealled against shall remain
suspended during the pendency of this appeal.
11. Let the appellant be released on bail during
the pendency of this appeal on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties,
each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned
12. List the appeal before the appropriate
Bench.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.02.2024
Nahid
