[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/829/2025 on 9 December, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. Dat
or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. e
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR No. 829 of 2025
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Ravi Bisht and Mr. Aayush Gaur, learned counsels for
the Revisionist.
2. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Mohd. Matlub, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.
4. The present Criminal Revision is being preferred against
the judgment and order dated 08.04.2025, passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Nainital, District Nainital,
in Complaint Case No. 4990 of 2023, whereby the Revisionist
was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 6,50,000/-, out of
which Rs. 6,45,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant
and Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited in the State Treasury. It was
further directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the
Revisionist shall undergo an additional simple imprisonment of
two months. The present Revision is also directed against the
judgment and order dated 31.10.2025, passed by the learned IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, District Nainital, in Criminal
Appeal No. 29 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the
Revisionist was dismissed and the judgment and order dated
08.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge
(J.D.), Nainital, District Nainital was affirmed.
5. Learned counsel for the Revisionist seeks bail for the
Revisionist on the grounds, firstly, that he has been awarded a
sentence of only six months' simple imprisonment; secondly, that
he is in custody since 25.11.2025; and thirdly, that he was
enlarged on bail during trial.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has vehemently
opposed the bail application contending, firstly, that during trial
the Revisionist breached bail conditions, which has been duly
recorded by the trial Court; secondly, that the Revisionist has
failed to comply with the order regarding statutory deposit of
20% of the awarded amount; and has further placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s R.A. Santana
Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. JMK Technology Pvt. Ltd. and
Another. It is submitted that on these grounds the bail application
deserves to be rejected.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and at
this stage taking note of the fact that there was default in bail and
that 20% of the awarded amount has not been deposited in
compliance of the Court's direction, this Court finds no good
ground to allow the bail application. Accordingly, the bail
application stands rejected.
8. List this case on 06.01.2026 for final hearing.
9. In the meantime, objections, if any, be filed by the
Respondents.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
09.12.2025
Shiksha
