Uttarakhand High Court
State vs Unknown on 6 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRJA No.136 of 2023
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Legal Aid Counsel, for the
appellant.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, D.A.G. for the State.
3. This is a criminal jail appeal filed by the appellant,
from jail through Senior Superintendent of District Jail,
Haldwani, Nainital, against the judgment and order dated
15.09.2023, passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, Nainital in S.T. No.77 of 2021,
State Vs. Nem Singh, whereby the appellant was convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment
with a fine of ₹5,000/- with default stipulation of one month
additional simple imprisonment.
4. It is further directed by trial court that the period
spent by the appellant in custody shall be adjusted against
the sentence awarded.
5. Admit.
6. Sent for T.C.R.
Exemption Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
7. An exemption application has been filed by the counsel
for the appellant/applicant for exempting him to file an
affidavit in support of the Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2024).
8. On the grounds stated in the exemption application,
the same is allowed.
9. The appellant/applicant is exempted from filing an
affidavit in support of the aforesaid Bail Application (IA No.1
of 2024).
Bail Application (IA No.2 of 2025)
10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has called for the
custody report of the appellant/applicant.
11. The custody report dated 16.06.2025 is passed on to this
Court and the same is taken on record.
12. On the basis of the said custody report, the
appellant/applicant has already spent four years three months
and 28 days as on 16.06.2025 and thereafter four months
have elapsed. Thus the total period of incarceration undergone
by the appellant/applicant is four years, seven months and 20
days.
13. It is contended by counsel for the appellant/applicant
that the period spent by the appellant/applicant is more than
half the sentence awarded to him.
14. In view of the statement made by counsel for the
appellant/applicant as well as perusal of the custody report,
there is no doubt that the appellant/applicant has spent more
than half of the sentence awarded.
15. In such view of the matter, the appellant/applicant is
entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the
appellant/applicant - Nem Singh - be released on bail during
the pendency of this appeal, on his executing a personal bond
and furnishing two reliable local sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
17. Appellant shall deposit the fine as imposed against him
by the trial court.
18. List this case in due course.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.10.2025
SK
