Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Alias Sanju vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3887 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Alias Sanju vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 April, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2025
                               With
                IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application


Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Alias Sanju                          ...... Appellant

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                    ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been preferred against

judgment and order dated 11.04.2025, passed in Sessions Trial

No.188 of 2011, State Vs. Raseed Ahmad @ Munne and Others, by

the court of II Additinal Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. By

it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 411 IPC and

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and

six months along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment

of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15

days.

2. Heard.

3. Admit.

4. Call for the LCR.

5. Once LCR is received, let paper book be provided

to learned counsel for the parties, as per rules.

6. List thereafter for final hearing.

7. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2025.

8. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant

that the appellant was on bail during trial; before the statement of

the appellant could be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant could not appear and

non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Therefore, he was

taken into custody. It is submitted that though the appellant was

granted bail by this Court, but in the meanwhile, final judgment,

which is impugned in the instant matter, has been pronounced.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is

a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended

and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. The sentence appealed against is suspended during

the pendency of the appeal.

12. The appellant be released on bail during the pendency

of the appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two

reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.04.2025

Ravi Bisht