Jayshree Mukherjee vs Unknown
2025 Latest Caselaw 1195 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Jayshree Mukherjee vs Unknown on 21 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

p



                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  CRLR No.255 of 2025
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the revisionist.

2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, Brief Holder for the State.

3. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2023, Jayshree Mukherjee vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby, the criminal appeal lodged by the revisionist has been partly allowed and the conviction of the revisionist under Section 471 and 120-B IPC has been set aside and she has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 471 and 120-B IPC, whereas the conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Section 420 of the IPC has been affirmed. The revisionist has also challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar District Haridwar in Criminal Case No.609 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand vs. Jayshree Mukherjee & others, whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced to the extent under Sections 420 IPC and sentenced accordingly

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the judgment and order passed by the learned appellate court is erroneous for the reason that on the one hand, the revisionist has been acquitted of Sections 471 and 120-B IPC and on the other hand, her

conviction and sentence under Section 420 IPC has been affirmed.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the charge of forging the sale deed has not been found proved against the revisionist. In that situation, she cannot be convicted for Section 420 IPC as there was no wrongful gain to the revisionist nor any loss was caused to the informant.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court which has been modified by the appellate court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist has some substance and the matter needs deliberation.

8. Admit.

9. List his case on 15.10.2025.

10. Heard on Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025).

11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant that the revisionist/applicant has surrendered before the learned trial court on 15.07.2025 wherefor, a supplementary affidavit has been filed along with the order of the Magistrate which reflects that she had surrendered on 15.07.2025 and was sent to jail to serve out the sentence.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionst/applicant would press the bail application. The arguments advanced in support of the revision have been reiterated. It is further submitted that she has always remained on bail during

pendency of trial and of criminal appeal and she never misused the bail granted to her.

13. I find substance in the said submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant. At this stage, the applicant/revisionist deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

14. Let the revisionist-Jayshree Mukherjee be released on bail, during the pendency of this revision, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

15. The execution of sentence against her shall also remain suspended during the pendency of this revision. The realization of fine imposed shall also remain stayed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 21.07.2025 Ravi