Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/677/2024 on 24 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
24.03.2025 IA/3/2025(Second Bail Application)
In
CRLR No.677 of 2024
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. Vikas Anand and Mrs. Gyan Mati
Kushwaha, learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for
the State.
3. Present criminal revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order dated
12.09.2024 passed by learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal
No.120 of 2022, "Jaswinder Singh @ Chinder
Vs. State of Uttarakhand" whereby the learned
Court below has rejected the appeal and
affirmed the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima District
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1204
of 2016, "State of Uttarakhand Vs. Jaswinder
Singh @ Chinder", by which the revisionist has
been convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act in
FIR No.76 of 2015, registered at P.S. Sitarganj,
District Udham Singh Nagar and sentenced to
undergo one year simple imprisonment along
with fine of ₹1,000/- and in default of payment
of fine to undergo further one month simple
imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel for the
revisionist/convict would submit that the
ground for revision is that the weapon allegedly
recovered from the revisionist /convict was not
sent to the FSL, if at all it was a fire arm or a
toy gun, then how the revisionist could be
convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act.
5. Admit the revision.
6. Heard on second bail application (IA 3 of
2025).
7. Counsel for the revisionist/convict would
submit this is the second bail application as the
first bail was rejected by the Court on
24.09.2024 directing the revisionist/ convict to
surrender before the Trial Court concerned; that,
the revisionist/convict has been falsely
implicated in this case; that, there was no public
witness of the instant crime, therefore, the
recovery of the alleged fire arm is doubtful;
that, out of total one year sentence, the
revisionist/convict has already served six
months sentence; that, the revisionist /convict
was on bail during trial and the appeal but he
did not misuse the same; that, the revisionist
/convict may be released on bail as the revision
may take considerable time for its conclusion
due to heavy pendency of cases.
8. Per contra, Counsel for the State strongly
opposed the bail application, however, admitted
that factual position is not disputed.
9. Having considered the entirety of the facts
and without expressing any final opinion on the
merits of the case, the revisionist/convict is
admitted to bail.
10. Let the revisionist/convict be released on
bail, during the pendency of present criminal
revision, on furnishing bail bond with two
sureties in the amount of ₹30,000/- and personal
bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court.
11. Second bail application (IA 3 of 2025)
stands disposed of accordingly.
12. List this case on 02.07.2025 for final
hearing.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
24.03.2025
SS
