Anmol And Others ........Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 829 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Anmol And Others ........Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 July, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               IA No. 4 of 2025 (Second Bail Application)
                               In
                  Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2025

 Anmol and others                                     ........Appellants
                                Versus

 State of Uttarakhand                                .......Respondent

 Present:-
        Ms. Geetanjali Dhami and Ms. Lubhna Jahan, Advocates for the
        appellants.
        Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State.

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and order dated 06 of 2014, passed in Special Sessions Trial

No. 06 of 2014, State of Uttarakhand v. Anmol and others, by the

court of Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Sessions Judge, Nainital. By it,

the appellants have been convicted under Section 2/3 of the Uttar

Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

years and six months, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of

payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one

month.

2. The appellant Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Radhy has filed the

second bail application seeking his release on bail during pendency of

the appeal. His first bail application has already been rejected on

19.05.2025.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mohd. Shahnawaz @

Radhy submits that the co-convicts have already been granted bail

because they had undergone custody for more than half of the

sentence; there are two cases of theft and one case of cheating against

the appellant Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Radhy, which is still pending; he is

not a convict; the appellant has not created any terror or fear; the

impugned judgment and order does not record anything to that effect.

Learned counsel also submits that merely on the basis that the

applicant has been involved in other cases, he has been convicted; the

applicant has already undergone custody for more than nine months.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the

prosecution has been able to prove the case.

6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a

case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended qua the

appellant Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Radhy and he be enlarged on bail.

7. The 2nd bail application of the appellant Mohd.

Shahnawaz @ Radhy is allowed.

8. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal qua the appellant Mohd.

Shahnawaz @ Radhy.

9. Let the appellant the appellant Mohd. Shahnawaz @

Radhy 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 the criminal appeal for final hearing in due course.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 10.07.2025 Avneet/