Khilaf Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 2629 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Khilaf Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 November, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No.290 of 2024
                            With
             Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2024
Khilaf Singh Rawat                                ...........Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                             ......... Respondent

Ms. Medha Pande, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vipul Painuli, Brief Holder for the State.



                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The revisionist proposes to challenge his

conviction and sentence under Section 406 IPC,

recorded on 30.03.2022 in Case No.75 of 2014, State of

Uttarakhand vs. Khilaf Singh Rawat, by the court Chief

Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal,

which was confirmed on 30.05.2022 in Criminal Appeal

No.09 of 2022, Sri Khilaph Singh Rawat vs. State of

Uttarakhand, by the court of Sessions Judge, Tehri

Garhwal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution case, the

revisionist was given a Work Order for conducting a

Training Programme and he was paid `10,56,000/- for

it. The applicant neither conducted the Training

Programme nor did he return the money.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that there was an agreement between the

revisionist and the State; it is a civil dispute and the

agreement itself contains an arbitration clause.

Reference has been made to the agreement and other

documents, as well.

5. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that this matter requires deliberation.

6. Admit.

7. List on 24.02.2025.

8. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2024

9. The revision has already been admitted.

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, challenged

against, shall remain suspended during and 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

in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court

concerned and also subject to the deposition of fine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.11.2024 Sanjay