Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/751/2024 on 7 January, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLA No. 751 of 2024
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Mr. Vikramaditya Shah, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
2. The instant appeal was admitted on
06.12.2024 and the records of the trial court were
summoned and received. While admitting the
appeal, the State was also directed to file the
objection to the bail application and since the trial
court while convicting the appellant, also enlarged
the appellant on interim bail, which was extended
by this Court from time to time.
3. Heard on bail application.
4. The present appellant - "Santosh
Kumar Srivastav" has been convicted by the Trial
Court pursuant to the judgment and order dated
26.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption Act), Kumaon Mandal/II
Additional Session Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital
in Special Session Trial No. 01 of 2018, State Vs.
Santosh Kumar Srivastava, for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. Under Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1998, the appellant was convicted
with the sentence of three years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he has to further
undergo imprisonment for six months additionally.
Under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant has been
convicted with the sentence of three years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he has to further
undergo imprisonment for six months additionally.
6. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel
submits that the appellant was on bail during trial
and he never misused the same and even while the
appellant was on interim bail, he never misused the
same.
7. Learned State Counsel also have not
disputed this fact that appellant was on bail during
trial and he never misused the same.
8. After hearing the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the appellant was on bail during
trial and he never misused the same, therefore,
without expressing any opinion on the merit of the
case, this Court is of the view that the appellant
should remain on bail since as on date he is on
interim bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
10. Interim bail order dated 26.11.2024
passed by the trial court is made absolute.
Appellant shall remain on bail, during the pendency
of the appeal, on the same personal bond and
sureties and on the same terms and conditions, as
mentioned by the trial court in the order dated
26.11.2024. Fine imposed by the trial court shall
also remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal.
11. The Registry is directed to prepare the
paper-book and supply the same to learned
counsel for the parties.
12. List this appeal in the month of
October, 2025, for final hearing.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
07.01.2025
Ujjwal
