Uttarakhand High Court

Hon'Ble Vivek Bharti Sharma vs Unknown on 5 May, 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
      05.05.2025                        CRLR No.245 of 2025
                                        Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State.

3. Present criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh in Criminal Appeal No.58/2024, "Deepesh Rawat & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand", Case Crime No.16 of 2019 P.S. Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ganglihat, District Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No.287/2019, "State Vs. Deepesh Rawat and another", convicting the revisionist U/s 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further fifteen days additional simple imprisonment, U/s 506 IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further fifteen days simple imprisonment and U/s 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo two years simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹15,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months additional simple imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/convict would submit that there is no independent witness of the alleged demand of dowry during marriage function, whereas a huge crowd attended the marriage function; that, the prosecution story is based on false and fabricated story as none of the witnesses has supported or corroborated the prosecution version; that, still the revisionist wants to save his matrimonial life at all cost.

5. Admit the revision.

6. Heard on the bail application.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist/convict would submit that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court did not consider this important aspect that 498A of IPC is related to a matrimonial dispute and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses; that, the revisionist is an innocent person and have not committed any offence; that, still the revisionist wants to save his matrimonial life at all cost; that, the revisionist was on bail during trial as well as during the pendency of appeal but he has never misused 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. Bail application (IA/1/2025) stands disposed of accordingly.

10. List this case on 23.07.2025 for final hearing.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 05.05.2025 SS