CRLR/532/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 3741 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/532/2025 on 27 August, 2025

                     Office Notes,
                    reports, orders
SL.                 or proceedings
         Date                                            COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 or directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      27.08.2025                       IA No.01 of 2025 (Bail Application)
                                       In
                                       CRLR No. 532 of 2025
                                       Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. This criminal revision under Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 is filed by the revisionist/convict to admit the revision, summon the lower court record and to quash/set-aside the judgment and order dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.187 of 2022, titled as "State vs. Harprasad Rana", whereby the learned court convicted the revisionist/applicant for two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of `5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist/applicant has been directed to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment and further judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2024, titled as "Harprasad Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand" and the revisionist may kindly be acquitted from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

4. Heard.

5. Admit.

6. Heard also on the Bail Application (IA No.01 of 2025)

7. Counsel for the revisionist/applicant submits that the revisionist/applicant was on bail during the pendency of trial as well as during pendency of appeal and he never misused the bail granted to him; after the judgment of appellate court, the revisionist/applicant surrendered before the court; the place of recovery is highly crowded place but there is no independent witness of alleged recovery and arrest of the revisionist which creates serious doubt over the prosecution; the alleged recovery was planted against the revisionist/applicant.

He further submits that it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that prior to search of accused the police team did not make search of each other; no videography of alleged recovery proceeding was done; alleged offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the revisionist/applicant as such the court below have erred in convicting the revisionist/applicant.

8. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application, however, admitted that the revisionist/convict was on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted to him.

9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties but without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the revisionist/applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of ₹30,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.

10. Bail Application stands allowed.

11. List this matter on 17.09.2025.

12. Meanwhile, objection(s), if any, to be filed by the respondent.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 27.08.2025 Akash