Sagar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1814 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sagar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 7 August, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

   HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                      Third Bail Application No. 7 of 2025
                                       In
                        Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2022


Sagar                                                             ......Appellant

                                     Versus


State of Uttarakhand                                              ....Respondent

Present:
              Ms, Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the appellant.
              Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and

order dated 01/02.02.2022, passed in Sessions Trial No.133 of 2020,

State Vs. Rajat Kumar and others, by the court of 4th Additional

Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961("the Act") and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 304-B IPC - rigorous imprisonment

for a period of ten years.

(ii) Under Section 498-A IPC - rigorous imprisonment

for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.50,000/-

. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three months.

(iii) Under Section 3/4 of the Act - rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of

Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one

month.

The appellant has sought bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. This is third bail application of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

co-convict Rajat has already been granted bail; the applicant has

already undergone about four year of imprisonment; he has been on

bail during trial; he has not misused it; he has no role in the offence,

as such. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that

the appellant has been imposed ten years of imprisonment. The co-

convict Rajat has been granted bail because he had already

undergone half of the sentence which is not the case of the appellant.

Therefore, the appellant cannot seek parity with the co-convict. She

submits that two bail applications of the appellant have been

dismissed on merits. There are no other changed circumstances.

6. Having considered the entirety of the facts, this Court is

of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

7. The bail application is rejected.

8. List on 03.11.2025 for hearing on appeal.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.08.2025 Jitendra