CRLR/428/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 788 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/428/2025 on 8 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

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

                                         CRLR No.428 of 2025
                                         Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the revisionist (appeared through V.C.).

2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

3. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate-1st, Haridwar, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No.1225 of 2022, State vs. Gaurav Tyagi, whereby revisionist was convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced three years' R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation of further one month S.I.; as well as the judgment and order dated 26.06.2025 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2023, Gaurav Tyagi vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and order passed by learned trial court was affirmed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist-accused that revisionist was a debt recovery advisor and the informant has given Rs.24,80,000/- towards consultancy fee, while first information report has been lodged on a wrong premise that the informant was duped with the aforesaid money on account of non-supply of raw material (plastic granules). He further argued that though this has been argued and pleaded before the trial court as well as appellate court,

but both the courts have not properly appreciated the submissions raised on behalf of the revisionist- accused. Thus, it is argued that there is perversity and illegality in the judgments and order impugned in the present revision.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that judgments and orders suffer from no illegality and error of fact or law.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the judgments and orders, this Court is of the view that present criminal revision deserves to be admitted.

7. Revision is admitted.

8. Sent for TCR.

9. List on 08.10.2025.

Bail Application (IA No.1/2025)

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would press the bail application (IA No.1/2025) today.

11. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist-accused that revisionist is in jail since the date of pronouncement of judgment of the appellate court. It is further submitted that during trial, he has already spent two years 13 days without remission till 27.06.2025 and a proof thereof annexure-1 is annexed to the bail application. He also submitted that since the revisionist-accused has been convicted only for a period of three years, out of which, two years has

been spent by him in prison and further he has been released on bail during the appeal and he has never misused the bail granted by the appellate court, therefore, revisionist deserves to be released on bail.

12. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the arguments which have been advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist while admission of the instant revision, this Court is of the view that during the pendency of the present revision, revisionist deserves to be released on bail.

13. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the revisionist be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.07.2025 AK