Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/27/2019 on 8 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions
No
             and Registrar's
                order with
               Signatures
                               CRLA 27/2019
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy AG, with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Brief Holder, for the State. (2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. (3) Vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2017, appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. First bail application was rejected on 21.6.2022. Now, second bail application (IA/3851/2025) has been moved on behalf of appellant-convict. (4) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, wherein the appellant was alleged to have taken the victim along in the early hours of 10.05.2017 on the pretext that her daughter's condition had worsened in the hospital, and thereafter the victim was found dead. It is further submitted that, as on 23.4.2025, appellant has undergone actual imprisonment of 7 years, 10 months and 18 days. It is further submitted that the appellant has no previous criminal history and there is no allegation of any misconduct inside jail during the period of incarceration. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the appeal is not likely to be heard finally in the near future and prolonged incarceration without the final hearing of appeal amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. She also submitted that under the prevalent practice, when a life convict has undergone 50% of the sentence (considering remission), he becomes eligible for consideration of bail pending appeal. (5) Learned State Counsel does not dispute period of incarceration undergone by the appellant-convict.

(6) Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the prolonged period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, and the fact that appeal is not likely to be heard finally in near future, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal.

(7) Accordingly, second bail application is allowed. Let the appellant be released on bail in the present case on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. The appellant shall furnish his mobile number and correct address to the SHO, PS Kaladhungi and shall keep the same updated. The appellant shall mark his presence in the said police station once in every fortnight. The appellant shall not commit any offence during the period he is on bail. If involved in any other criminal activity, the State shall be entitled to seek cancellation of bail.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.07.2025 Pr