Deepak Sati vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1362 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Deepak Sati vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 July, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
                                 In
                  Criminal Appeal No.803 of 2024

Deepak Sati                                             ......Appellant

                               Versus


State of Uttarakhand                                   ....Respondent

Present:
              Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the appellant.
              Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order

dated 06.12.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No.07 of 2021, State of

Uttarakhand Vs. Deepak Sati, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Karnprayag, District Chamoli. By it, the appellant has been acquitted of

the charge under Section 307, 504, 506 (2) IPC and convicted under

Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of

fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

The appellant has sought bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 16.02.2021, at 08:00

in the late evening, the appellant attacked PW2, the injured with a sharp

edged weapon. Due to which, he sustained injuries. Charge under

Section 307, 325, 504, 506 (2) IPC was framed against him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in order to

attract the provisions of Section 326 IPC, it is necessary to show that the

injuries were grievous and were caused by dangerous weapon. It is

argued that the injury report does not reveal that the injuries were

grievous. The doctor, who has been examined as PW3 has not stated as

to whether the injuries were simple or grievous.

5. These facts are not disputed by learned State counsel.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of

sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

7. The bail application is allowed.

8. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

9. The appellant be released on bail, during the pendency of the

appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court

concerned.

10. List in due course.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 29.07.2025 Jitendra