Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 397 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 May, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
                                In
                 Criminal Appeal No.307 of 2025

Sonu                                                       ......Appellant

                                 Versus


State of Uttarakhand                                       ....Respondent

Present:
              Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for the appellant.
              Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

The appellant proposes to challenge judgment and order

dated 10.01.2023, passed in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2021, State Vs.

Tekchand and others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Ramnagar, District Nainital. By it, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of seven years, with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In

default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further

period of one month.

2. The instant appeal is delayed. A delay condonation

application has been filed by the appellant. It has not been objected to

by learned State counsel.

Heard on delay condonation application No. 2 of 2025

3. Having considered the grounds of delay, the delay in filing

the appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed.

4. Admit.

5. It is submitted that co-convicts have already preferred

Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2025.

6. LCR has also been summoned.

7. Let paper book be prepared and provided to learned

counsel for the parties, as per Rules.

8. List alongwith CRLA No. 419 of 2023.

Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2025

9. 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; on this ground

alone, co-convicts have been granted bail.

10. These facts are not disputed by learned State counsel.

11 Having considered, without adverting much on merits,

this Court is of the view it is a case in which the execution of sentence

should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

14. 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.) 14.05.2025 Jitendra