State vs Unknown
2025 Latest Caselaw 4653 UK

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.176 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Ms. Neelima Mishra Joshi, 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 09.11.2023, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, Nainital in S.T. No.103 of 2022, State Vs. Narendra Prasad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000/- with default stipulation of two weeks additional simple imprisonment and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant would press the bail application on the ground that the appellant/applicant has spent more than half the sentence awarded to him.

5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed State counsel to get instructions/custody report in the matter.

6. Today State counsel passed on the instructions/custody report dated 04.03.2025 to this Court, which are taken on record.

7. On the basis of the said instructions/custody report, it is contended by State counsel that the appellant/applicant had

already spent three years three months and ten days' time till today in custody which is substantial portion of sentence imposed upon him.

8. In view of the statement made by counsel for the appellant/applicant as well as perusal of the instructions/custody report, there is no doubt that the appellant/applicant has spent more than half of the sentence awarded to him.

9. In such view of the matter, the appellant/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the appellant/applicant - Narendra Prasad - be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal, upon his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

11. Appellant shall deposit the fine as imposed against him by the trial court.

12. List this case in due course.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.10.2025 SK