Achin Sagar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 271 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Achin Sagar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 May, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                    IA No. 2 of 2025 (Bail Application)
                                   With
            IA No. 1 of 2023 (Delay Condonation Application)

                                  In
                    Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2025
Achin Sagar                                                   ........Appellant
                                    Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                          ........Respondent
Present:-

       Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
       Mr. V.S. Rawat, AGA for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The appellant proposes to challenge the judgment and

order dated 10.01.2023 recorded in Sessions Trial Nos. 46 of 2021,

47 of 2021 and 48 of 2021, State v. Tek Chand and others, by the

court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital. By

it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections

395, 397 read with 34 IPC.

2. The instant appeal is delayed. A delay condonation

application has been filed by the appellant.

3. Heard on delay condonation application.

4. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the

cause shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient

and the delay may be condoned.

5. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The delay

condonation application is allowed.

6. Heard on admission.

7. Admit.

8. It is submitted that lower court record has already been

received in the appeal preferred by the co-convicts.

9. List along with CRLA No. 419 of 2023.

10. Heard on bail application and perused the record.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

appellant has been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment; he

has already undergone more than half of the sentence; there are less

chances of the appeal being heard in near future. It is also argued

that co-convicts have also been granted bail.

12. These factual narrations are not disputed by the learned

State Counsel.

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

case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and

the appellant be enlarged on bail.

14. The bail application is allowed.

15. The execution of sentence appealed against is

suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

16. Let the appellant 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.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 09.05.2025 Avneet/