CRLR/310/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 5431 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/310/2025 on 11 November, 2025

              Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings or
SL.
      Date        directions and                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
              Registrar's order with
                    Signatures




                                        IA No.01 of 2025 (Bail Application)
                                        In
                                        CRLR No. 310 of 2025
                                        Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Ms. Manju Bahuguna along with Mr. D. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

2. Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. This criminal revision under Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 is filed by the Revisionist to acquit the Revisionist from the charge levelled against him and to quash the judgment and order dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.317 of 2019, titled as "Yunus vs. State of Uttarakhand" filed by the Revisionist against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Second, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.373 of 2017, titled as "State of Uttarakhand vs. Yunus" for the offence punishable under Sections 3/5/6/11(i)(ii) of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act (FIR No.472 of 2016) at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the learned trial court below has acquitted the Revisionist under Section 3 & 6 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act but convicted under Section 5/11(i) of the same Act and sentenced to a fine of `5000/- and three years of rigorous imprisonment.

Heard also on the Bail Application (IA No.01 of 2025)

4. Counsel for the Revisionist/applicant submits that the learned trial court has failed to consider material evidence on record which clearly establish that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Revisionist/applicant and has illegally recorded a perverse finding of fact as well as of law.

5. Counsel for the Revisionist/applicant further submits that the Revisionist/applicant is languishing in jail since 14.05.2025, therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the Revisionist/applicant in jail as the trial is likely to take considerable time.

6. Counsel for the Revisionist/applicant further submits that during trial the present Revisionist/applicant was on bail and he never misused the same; the court below failed to consider that prosecution could not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts; that, the impugned orders passed by the courts below are wholly arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set-aside.

7. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application, however, admitted that the Revisionist/applicant was on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted to him.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties but without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Revisionist/applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

9. Bail Application stands allowed.

10. List this matter on 05.01.2026.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 11.11.2025 Akash