Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/456/2025 on 6 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
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.456 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the
revisionist.
2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
3. This revision is directed against the judgment and
order dated 01.05.2019 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge
(S.D.)/ACJM, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Criminal Case No.10266 of 2013, State vs. Jagveer Singh,
whereby revisionist was convicted under Section 279 IPC
and sentenced to undergo six months' S.I. and fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of 30 days' S.I.; under
Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to two years' R.I. and fine
of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of two months' S.I.
and Section 338 IPC sentenced to undergo two years' R.I.
and fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation of 30 days'
S.I. as well as the judgment and order dated 06.06.2025
passed by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.155
of 2029, Jagveer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby
the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and order
passed by learned trial court was affirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the
judgment and order passed by learned trial court as well as
appellate court suffers from patent illegality of facts and
error of law for the reason that there is no evidence with the
prosecution to conclusively prove this fact that at the time of
alleged accident, he was the driver of the offending vehicle
i.e. Truck No.U.P.-25 T-9931. He further submits that he
was never arrested from the spot and he was only named by
the owner of the offending vehicle who has never been
examined in the trial court.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supported the
judgment and order impugned in the present criminal
revision.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of the record, this Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist to
admit the present revision.
7. Admit the revision.
8. Sent for TCR.
9. List on 04.11.2025.
Bail Application (IA No.3/2025)
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant would
press the bail application (IA No.3/2025) today.
11. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist-
applicant revisionist has surrendered before the trial court
on 05.08.2025 and a questionnaire is annexed to prove this
fact as annexure-1 to the bail application. He further
contends that revisionist was on bail during trial as well as
during appeal and he has never misused the bail granted to
him. He also submits that the maximum sentence awarded
against the revisionist is two years. On merits, he advanced
the same argument that he had made while arguing for
admission of the revision.
12. Per contra, learned State Counsel is not seriously
opposed the bail application in view of the given facts and
circumstances of the case.
13. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that during
the pendency of the present revision, revisionist deserves to
be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the
revisionist-Jagveer Singh alias Jagbeer Singh be released on
bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction
of the court concerned.
15. During the pendency of the present revision, the
realization of fine, as imposed by the learned trial court
against the revisionist, shall also remain stayed. The
sentence imposed upon the revisionist shall also remain
suspended.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.08.2025
AK
