CRLR/884/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 6432 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/884/2025 on 18 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. 884 of 2025

                              Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

2. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Criminal Case No. 1892 of 2013 (4500 of 2013), titled as "State of Uttarakhand vs. Vinod Kumar Sen and Another", whereby the Revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of ₹10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.The Revisionist has also challenged the subsequent judgment and order dated 26.11.2025, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2024, titled as "Vinod Kumar Sen vs. State of Uttarakhand", whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revisionist and affirmed the conviction under Section 420 of the IPC as awarded by the learned Trial Court.

4. Admit.

5. Heard on the Bail Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2025).

6. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the Revisionist was on bail during the course of trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal and did not misuse the liberty so granted. It is further submitted that the amount involved has already been paid to the concerned person, as recorded in the impugned order.

7. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application; however, he fairly concedes that the Revisionist remained on bail during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal.

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Revisionist deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision.

9. Accordingly, the Revisionist- Vinod Kumar Sen, shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

10. It is clarified that the grant of bail shall not be treated as a ground for seeking adjournments or for delaying the disposal of the present Criminal Revision.

11. List this case on 16.03.2026.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 18.12.2025 Shiksha