Baneshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another"
2025 Latest Caselaw 3610 UK

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3610 UK
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Baneshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another" on 9 April, 2025

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                   Office      Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                proceedings     or
         Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 directions     and
                   Registrar's order
                   with Signatures
      09.04.2025                        CRLR No.176 of 2025
                                        Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State.

3. Mr. R.K. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

4. Present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District-Almora in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2023, "Shyam Singh Baneshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another"

whereby the appeal of the revisionist has been dismissed confirming the conviction order passed vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2023 by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat in Criminal Complaint Case No.72 of 2019, "Chandan Singh Vs. Shyam Singh" whereby the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and pay a fine of ₹6,80,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment and the complainant shall be entitled to recover compensation as per law.

5. The revision is time barred, accordingly, delay condonation application (IA/1/2025) has been filed to condone the delay in filing the revision.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned counsel for the State has no objection if the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

7. Accordingly, delay condonation application (IA/1/2025) is allowed for the reasons stated therein and the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist/convict would submit that the compromise has arrived at between the revisionist and the complainant and the revisionist has given ₹2 lakh to the complainant.

9. Admit the revision.

10. Heard on bail application.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist/convict would submit that revisionist /convict is in jail since 19.03.2025; that, now the compromise has taken place between the parties; that, the revisionist/convict has already paid ₹2 lakh to the complainant and for remaining amount a cheque of ₹4 lakh has been received by respondent no.2; that, the revisionist /convict may be released on bail as the revision may take considerable time for its conclusion due to heavy pendency of cases.

12. Per contra, Counsel for the State strongly opposed the bail application, however, admitted that factual position is not disputed.

13. Having considered the entirety of the facts and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, the revisionist/convict is admitted to bail.

14. Let the revisionist/convict be released on bail, during the pendency of present criminal revision, on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of ₹50,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.