Hon'Ble Pankaj Purohit vs Unknown
2025 Latest Caselaw 708 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Hon'Ble Pankaj Purohit vs Unknown on 3 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                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.412 of 2025
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. M.K. Ray and Mr. Harsh Taneja, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent.

3. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (SD), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No.7029 of 2013 State Vs. Babu Ahmed, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the revisionist for a sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and for a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 304A IPC, with default stipulation, three months' additional simple imprisonment and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently, as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2025 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2019 Babu Ahmed Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby, the appeal preferred by the revisionist has been dismissed and the judgement and order of convicting and sentencing the revisionist was upheld.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that both the Courts have committed manifest error of law by not considering the wide aspect of the matter and thereby, wrongly convicted and sentenced the revisionist.

5. It is further contended by him that the alleged incident was happened on 20.10.2007 while the FIR of the incident was lodged on 19.03.2008, that too after the death of informant's son on 05.03.2008 and the cause of death of informant's son was Traumatic quadriplegia caused by Bedsores and Septicaemia. This vital aspect has been ignored by learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and having gone through the judgments and orders impugned, this Court is of the view that the present revision is worth for admission.

7. Admit.

8. Let Trial Court Record be summoned. Bail Application (IA/1/2025)

9. It is contended by learned counsel for revisionist/applicant that the revisionist/ applicant has surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 23.06.2025, wherefrom, he has been sent to concerned jail to serve out his sentence so imposed by the learned Trial Court and question- answer to the said aspect is also annexed as Annexure No.3 to the Bail Application.

10. Learned counsel for revisionist/ applicant would press the bail application (IA/1/2025) in instant revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant submits that the revisionist/applicant was on bail throughout the trial as well as during the pendency of appeal and he never misused the bail granted to him.

11. In support of the bail application, learned counsel for revisionist/applicant repeated the same argument, which was offered in revision as above.

12. Per contra, learned State Counsel has supported the judgments and orders impugned passed by learned Trial Court as well as by learned Appellate Court.

13. Having considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments and orders, since, the revisionist/applicant has been convicted and sentenced maximum to one year, this Court is of the view that during pendency of the present criminal revision, the revisionist-applicant deserves to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly, the bail application (IA/1/ 2025) is allowed. Let the revisionist/ applicant-Babu Ahmed, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned.

15. During the pendency of the present revision, the realisation of fine, as imposed by the learned trial court against the revisionist, shall also remain stayed.

16. Put up on 11.09.2025.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.07.2025 PN