Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Vivek Bharti Sharma vs Unknown on 21 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
SL. Office Notes,
No. Date reports, orders or COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
IA/1/2023 (Bail Application)
In
CRLA No.600 of 2023
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Present Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel
for the appellants/applicants.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant
Government Advocate for the State.
3. Present criminal appeal has been preferred by
the appellants/applicants against the judgment and
order dated 17.08.2023 passed by learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No.209 of
2015, "State Vs. Monu Singh @ Monu Rathour &
Others" whereby the appellants/applicants have been
convicted and sentenced to undergo five years
rigorous imprisonment along with fine of ₹3,000/-
for commission of offence under Section 412 of the
IPC and in default of payment of fine they are
directed to undergo two months of additional
imprisonment.
4. Heard on the Bail Application (IA/1/2023).
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants
would submit that the complainant has denied the
act of decoity at his home during his cross
examination before the trial Court as PW1; that,
allegedly the recovered articles are purse, ATM and
Aadhar Card, which is highly unlikely, on the fact of
it; that the victim and the complainant have not
supported the prosecution story; that the FIR is
delayed one and the prosecution has not explained
any reason about the delay in lodging the FIR; that
the appellants/applicants were on bail during the trial
but they never misused the conditions of bail
imposed on them by the trial court.
He would further submit that final disposal of
the appeal would take long time, therefore, the
appellants/applicants may be granted bail during the
pendency of the present appeal.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently
opposed the bail application, however, he would
admit that even if the articles were released in favour
of the complainant but there is no mention of Aadhar
Card Number; that, there is no evidence that in
whose name the ATM Card was issued by the Bank;
and there was no mention of denomination of the
currency notes allegedly looted in the dacoity. He
would also admit that the appellants/applicants were
on bail during the trial and they never misused the
same.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the applicants/appellants and without
making any observations about the final merits of
the case, this is a fit case for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicants/appellants be released on
bail, during the pendency of present criminal appeal,
on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the
amount of ₹70,000/- by each one of them and
personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the learned Trial Court.
9. List this case on 07.08.2024 for final hearing
along with connected matters.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
21.03.2024
SS
