Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Pankaj Purohit vs Unknown on 7 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.233 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the revisionist.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal,
B.H. for the State.
3. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment
and order dated 13.10.2022, passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Senior Civil Judge, Rudrapur,
Udham Singh Nagar, passed in Criminal Case No.5316 of
2018, Manjeet Singh Vs. M/s Radhe Trading Company and
others, whereby the revisionist was convicted under Section
138 of N.I. Act, 1881, and sentenced one year rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,95,000/- with default
stipulation of three months additional rigorous
imprisonment and further directed that out of the aforesaid
amount of ₹3,70,000/- will be paid to the respondent-
compliant (Manjeet Singh); as well as the judgment and
order dated 18.03.2025, passed by learned Ist Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in
Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2022, Arvind Kumar Vs. State
and another, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist has
been dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the
trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant was
upheld.
Second Bail Application (IA No.3 of 2025)
4. Today this criminal revision is listed along with a second
bail application moved by the revisionist/applicant.
5. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, since the
revisionist/applicant is in jail, his wife-Smt. Rajrani is present
before this Court.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the
revisionist/applicant that the revisionist/applicant has
already paid a sum of ₹2,00,000/- to the respondent no.2-
complainant (Manjeet Singh) through a demand draft and
today in the form of a cheque he has given ₹1,70,000/- before
this Court, to respondent no.2 and ₹80,000/- has already
been deposited by him at the time of filing of the appeal before
the appellate court.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant submits
that the credential of the revisionist/applicant to return the
money shows that the revisionist/applicant has a clear intent
and he prays that the revisionist/applicant be released on
bail.
8. Having considered the rival submission of the parties,
particularly, the fact that the amount of fine ₹3,70,000/- is
paid to respondent no.2-complainat (Manjeet Singh) by the
revisionist/applicant and ₹80,000/-, plus, has been deposited
by him in the appellate court which he permits to be released
in favour of respondent no.2-complainat (Manjeet Singh).
9. This Court is of the view that the revisionist/applicant,
at this stage, in view of the aforesaid facts, is entitled to be
released on bail.
10. Accordingly the second bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant - Arvind Kumar be released on bail,
during pendency of the present criminal revision, on his
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
12. List this case on 12.11.2025.
13. Since the respondent no.2-complainant (Manjeet
Singh) is present before this Court, there is no need to issue
notice upon him.
14. Respondent no.2-complainant (Manjeet Singh) may
engage any Advocate of his choice forthwith.
15. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to counsel
for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.08.2025
SK
