Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/739/2025 on 4 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
CRLR No.739 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for
the revisionist.
2. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. By means of present revision, revisionist has
challenged the judgment and order dated 08.09.2022,
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital,
in Criminal Case No.2219 of 2021, State vs. Vinay
Kannaujiya & another, whereby revisionist was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section
353 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with
fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of further
one month additional S.I. as well as the judgment and
order dated 29.10.2025, passed by learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal
Appeal No.89 of 2022, Vinay Kannaujiya & another vs.
State of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned appellate
court has affirmed the judgment and order passed by
learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
revisionist that on amount of some misbehave
committed by the informant-Asha Bisht, S.I.,
revisionist lodged his protest against the misbehave of
the informant which resulted into filing of the FIR at
the behest of the informant against the revisionist.
Though, the criminal complaint has already been filed
by the revisionist before the CJM, Nainital which was
registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.2758 of
2021 against the informant by the revisionist. The
said complaint is still pending. However, in the
criminal case filed by the informant, the revisionist
was convicted. He further contended that the
revisionist was innocent and had not committed any
obstruction in the discharge of the official duties of
the informant, the Sub-Inspector. The revisionist
challenged both the judgments and orders of the trial
court as well as of the appellate court on the ground
that the evidence has not been properly appreciated
and the case of the revisionist has completely been
ignored while deciding the trial as well as the appeal.
5. Admit.
6. TCR be summoned.
Bail Application (IA No.1/2025)
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would press
the bail application of the revisionist. He advanced the
same arguments which have been advanced by him
for the admission of the criminal revision.
8. Apart from this, it has also been contended by
learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist
was convicted only for one year and Rs.5,000/- has
also been inflicted as a fine upon him. He further
contends that he has been released on bail during
trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal and
he never misused the bail granted to him, therefore,
he is entitled to be released on bail in the present
criminal revision also.
9. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently
opposed the bail application of the revisionist but he
admits the fact that the revisionist never misused the
bail granted to him during trial as well as during the
pendency of the appeal.
10. Having considered the rival contentions raised by
learned counsel for the parties and having gone
through the impugned judgments and orders, this
Court is of the view that during the pendency of
present criminal revision, revisionist deserves to be
released on bail.
11. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the
revisionist-Vinay Kannaujiya be released on bail, on
his executing a personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
12. During the pendency of the present revision, the
realization of fine, as imposed by the learned trial
court against the revisionist, shall also remain stayed.
13. List on 29.12.2025.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
04.11.2025
AK
