Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/642/2024 on 13 September, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
Sl. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLR No. 642 of 2024
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
1. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mohd. Shafy,
learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. Shaurabh Pande, learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. This revision is filed under Section
442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 challenging the conviction
recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First
of 2019, as affirmed by Sessions Judge,
Champawat in Criminal Appeal No. 04of
2022. By the judgment and order dated
05.03.2022 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Tanakpur, District Champawat in
Criminal Case No. 616 of 2019,
revisionist has been convicted under
Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. He has
been directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months under
Section 279 I.P.C. with fine of ₹5,000/-
and, in default of payment of fine, he
was sentenced to undergo further one
month simple imprisonment; he has also
been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months under
Section 304-A I.P.C. with fine of
₹10,000/- and, in default of payment of
fine, he was sentenced to undergo
further one month simple imprisonment.
4. Revisionist challenged the aforesaid
judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No.
04 of 2022, which has been dismissed by
learned Sessions Judge, Champawat vide
judgment dated 30.08.2024.
5. Challenging the judgments passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate and
learned Sessions Judge, revisionist has
approached this Court.
6. As per Office report, revision is filed
within time.
7. Admit the revision.
8. List this case on 20.12.2024.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the FIR is belated by eight
days and there is no proper explanation
for such delay; there is no identification
of the accused, who was driving the
vehicle. He further submits that it was a
case of hit and run and accident was
caused by some other vehicle and the
revisionist was falsely roped in the
offence.
10. The impugned judgment reveals
that accident occurred on 15.06.2019 at
about 11:30am, while the deceased was
going to get milk from a shop, and was
hit by fast moving Tata Safari Car,
bearing registration No. PB10GD-6783.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the revisionist was on bail
during trial as well as during appeal. He,
thus, prayed that revisionist be granted
bail.
12. Learned State Counsel, however,
submits that the revisionist has not
surrendered as yet, therefore, he cannot
be granted bail.
13. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that he has moved application
seeking exemption from the requirement
of surrendering before the trial court, as
the sentence is for six months only. He
relied upon a decision dated 26.05.2023
rendered by Division Bench of this Court
in WPMB No. 84 of 2023 (Shubham
Singhal vs High Court of Uttarakhand,
through the Registrar General), wherein
it was held that application seeking
exemption may be entertained without
insisting for surrender of the applicant.
14. In the case of Sanjay Nagayach Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine MP 898, Hon'ble
Madhya Pradesh High Court on an
application for exemption from
surrender, passed the order and required
the applicant in that case to furnish
bonds.
15. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, it is provided that the
execution of impugned sentence, shall
remain suspended till decision in this
revision, subject to the revisionist
executing a personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties, each of the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
16. Exemption Application (IA No. 2 of
2024) is disposed of accordingly.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
13.09.2024
Aswal
