Uttarakhand High Court
State vs Unknown on 30 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings or
SL. No Date directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
Registrar's order with
Signatures
CRLR No.394 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the revisionist.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State.
3. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order
dated 05.12.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.636 of 2019,
State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and another, whereby the revisionist has been
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 411 and was awarded
three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000/- with
default stipulation of three months additional imprisonment as well as the
judgment and order dated 28.04.2025, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Appeal No.53 of 2023, Deepak @ Deepu and another Vs. State, whereby
the appellate court has affirmed the judgment and order passed by trial
court and dismissed the appeal.
4. Admit.
5. Sent for T.C.R.
6. It is submitted by counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has
surrender before the trial court on 23.06.2025 and a proof of this fact is
annexure no.2 which is filed in support of the bail application.
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant would press for the
bail application of the revisionist/applicant.
8. It is argued by counsel for the revisionist/applicant that the F.I.R.
has been lodged against the revisionist/applicant after a period of nine
months from the date of alleged recovery.
9. It is argued by counsel for the revisionist/applicant that no
independent witnesses of recovery are there and moreover during trial,
prosecution could only examine the Police personnel in support of its case
and no independent witnesses were examined.
10. It is further submitted by counsel for the revisionist/applicant that
during trial as well as the appeal the revisionist/applicant was on bail
throughout but he never misused the bail granted to him.
11. Per contra, State counsel supported the judgment passed by both
the courts, trial court as well as appellate court and submits that there is
concurrent finding against the revisionist/applicant. He has further drawn
attention of this Court to another fact that the revisionist/applicant has
been convicted under other two other similar crimes.
12. Having heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perusal of the
impugned judgment and orders passed by the trial court as well as
appellate court, this Court is of the view that at this stage, the
revisionist/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant - Deepak alias Deepu be released on bail uring
pendency of the present criminal revision, on his executing a personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
15. Realization of fine, as imposed by the trial court, shall also remain
stayed, during pendency of the present criminal revision.
16. List this case on 25.09.2025.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.06.2025
SK
