Uttarakhand High Court
Uttarakhand vs Mohammad Yaseen on 8 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.473 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the revisionist.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for
the State.
3. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment
and order dated 21.09.2024, passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar,
passed in Criminal Case No.192 of 2023, State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Mohammad Yaseen, whereby the
revisionist was convicted under Sections 324, 504 and 506
of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced
for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000/-
with default stipulation of one month additional
imprisonment under Section 324 of IPC one year rigorous
imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000/- with default stipulation
of 15 days additional imprisonment and under Section 504
of IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000/-
with default stipulation of 15 days additional imprisonment
under Section 306 of IPC and two years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000/- with default stipulation
one month additional sentence; as well as judgment and
order dated 25.07.2025, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Appeal No.44 of 2024, Mohammad Yaseen Vs. State,
whereby the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist was
dismissed and the judgment and order convicting and
sentencing the revisionist was affirmed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the
admission of the criminal revision.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the
judgment and orders impugned cannot sustain on the facts
as well as on the law, inasmuch as, the knife by which the
injuries were said to have been inflicted by the revisionist on
the injured-Imran has never been sent for forensic
examination; therefore the prosecution failed to prove
beyond all reasonable doubt that as to whether the
prosecution story is correct or not and as to whether the
assault was made with the knife recovered on the pointing
out of the revisionist. He further submits that there are
material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution
witness. He further submits that there was delay of three
days in the case of prosecution in lodging of the FIR which
have never been explained by the prosecution.
6. He further submits that there was no motive assigned
on the revisionist to commit the crime.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the
judgment and order impugned in the criminal revision.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the view that the matter requires deliberation.
9. Admit.
10. Summon the T.C.R.
11. Issue notice to respondent no.2, returnable within six
weeks.
12. Steps to be taken within a week.
Bail Application (IA No.2 of 2025)
13. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist-
applicant to press this bail application that the revisionist-
applicant has surrendered before the trial court pursuant to
dismissal of his appeal on 01.08.2025 and to prove this fact
annexure no.1 to the bail application (question answer
dated 01.08.2025) has been annexed by learned counsel for
the revisionist-applicant.
14. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist-
applicant that the revisionist-applicant was on bail during
trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and he never
misused the same.
15. However he further submits that maximum sentence
which was imposed upon the revisionist-applicant is of two
years, therefore it would be in the fitment of facts if he be
released on bail during trial, during pendency of this
criminal revision.
16. On merits of the bail, he advanced the same
arguments which he took during the time for admission of
the criminal revision.
17. Per contra, learned State counsel seriously opposed the
bail application and contended that there are eye-witness of
the said incident whose evidence has not been discredited
during trial and Doctor has also been examined, who proved
five injuries sustained by the injured.
18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
keeping in view the entire facts of the case, this Court is of
the view that revisionist-applicant deserves bail during
pendency of the present criminal revision.
19. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
20. Let the applicant - Mohammad Yaseen alias
Mohammad Yaseen Ansari 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.
21. Realization of fine, as imposed by the trial court, shall
remain stayed, during pendency of the present criminal
revision. The sentence shall also remain suspended.
22. List this case on 03.11.2025.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
08.08.2025
SK
