[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Naveen vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 1 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.665of 2025
Naveen ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate and Ms. Lubna Jahan, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. B. N. Molekhi, D.A.G. for the State.
With
Bail Application No. 1 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2025
Durga Prasad alias Bhupendra and others ......Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate and Ms. Lubna Jahan, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. B. N. Molekhi, D.A.G. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Since both these appeals arise from one and same
judgment and order, they are heard together and decided by this
common judgment.
2. In Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2025, the appellant Naveen
seeks bail and in Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2025, the appellants
Durga Prasad alias Bhupendra, Akash, Sagar and Gaurav alias Bavi
seek bail.
3. Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment and
order dated 07.11.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2024, State
of Uttarakhand Vs. Durga Prasad @ Bhupendra and others, by the
court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.
By it, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section
307 read with 149, 326 read 149, 325 read with 149, 323, 147 and
148 IPC. The appellants seek bail during the pendency of these
appeals.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. These are admitted appeals.
6. List in due course.
7. Heard on bail applications.
8 According to the FIR, on 28.02.2022, at 10:45 p.m., PW1
Rohit was assaulted by the appellants and others, due to which he
sustained serious injuries.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire
case is false. It was a case of an accident. The injured sustained some
injuries on his jaw, which were as a result of an accident. Police have
pressurised the appellants to pay medical expenses to the injured after
seeing the CCTV. But subsequently, false FIR has been lodged. He
submits that PW3 Tarun, PW4 Rajendra Singh, PW5 Vijay Kumar and
PW6 Vishal have not supported the prosecution case. Merely based on
the statement of the PW1 Rohit, the injured, the appellants have been
convicted. He submits that, in fact, PW1, the injured in his statement
has categorically stated that he did not know the appellants; he did
not have acquaintance with them. It is argued that how could PW1
Rohit, named the appellants, if he did not know the appellant earlier. It
is submitted that without any identification, it doubts the prosecution
case. Moreover, it is argued that the parties have settled the dispute
amicably and they have filed the compounding applications.
10. Learned State counsel admits that the case is based on
the evidence of PW1 Rohit, the injured and other eyewitnesses have not
supported the prosecution case.
11. It is a stage of bail post conviction. The appellants do not
have a privilege of presumption of innocence as they are convicts.
Whatever discussion is made at this stage shall confine to the disposal
of the bail applications, which shall have no bearing on the subsequent
proceedings of the case.
12. The Court wanted to know from learned State counsel as
to how PW1 Rohit, could name the appellants when he never knew
them? How could he identified them? He submits that he has no
answer.
13. It may be noted that even in the court the appellants have
not been identified, as such, by PW1 Rohit.
14. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a
case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the
appellants be enlarged on bail.
15. The bail applications are allowed.
16. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeals.
17. The appellants be released on bail, during the pendency of
these appeals, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
24.12.2025
Jitendra
