CRJA/20/2019
2025 Latest Caselaw 934 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRJA/20/2019 on 15 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

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

                                 CRJA No.20 of 2019
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Smt. Nipus Mola Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Shivam Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.

2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Assistant Government Advocate along with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. This Criminal Jail Appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2019, passed by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.159 of 2011, whereby appellant were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 411 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and they were awarded sentence for life imprisonment along with total fine of ₹12,000/- each.

4. By the impugned judgment as many as three persons, namely - 1) Rahul Rai; 2) Ravindra Singh; and 3) Ramesh Kashyap were convicted and sentenced. Rahul Rai filed CRLA No.94/2019 which is connected with this Criminal Jail Appeal and he was granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 16.04.2024. Ravindra Singh (appellant no.1) was also granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench on 10.03.2022 and soon after grant of bail, Mr. Ravindra Singh reportedly passed away. Vide order dated 16.04.2024, Co-ordinate Bench abated the Criminal Jail Appeal qua Ravindra Singh (appellant no.1).

5. Today, the matter is listed on bail application filed by Ramesh Kashyap, who is represented by learned Amicus Curiae in CRJA No.20/2019.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that appellant no.2 has suffered actual incarceration for 11 years; appellant was not named in the FIR, however, charge-sheet was filed against him on the basis of statement of co-accused; conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances are not complete; many prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, it is fit case for grant of bail.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that as per Custody Certificate issued in the month of April, 2025, appellant has undergone sentence of 10 years, 9 months and 3 days as on 08.04.2025. Thus, he submits that appellant has completed 11 years' sentence in jail. He concedes that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, however, submits that chain of circumstances is complete

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that appellant has suffered incarceration for 11 years and there is no likelihood of the appeal coming up for final hearing in near future, a case for grant of bail at this stage is made out.

9. Accordingly, Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the appellant - Ramesh Kashyap 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 of concerned police station and shall keep the same updated. The appellant shall mark his presence in the said police station once in every month. 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.

11. List this Appeal in due course.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.07.2025 SS