CRLR/970/2024
2025 Latest Caselaw 4714 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/970/2024 on 7 October, 2025

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

                              Bail Application (IA No. 01 of 2024)
                              In
                              CRLR No. 970 of 2024
                              With
                              Bail Application (IA No. 01 of 2025
                              In
                              CRLR No. 975 of 2024
                              Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned counsel for the Revisionist in both the Revisions.

2. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Criminal Revisions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2021, "Mahavir and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand", whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Tanakpur, District Champawat. The Revisions have also been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Tanakpur, District Champawat, whereby the Revisionists were convicted under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000/- each in Criminal Case No. 261 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand vs. Mahavir and Another.

4. Admit.

5. Objection(s), if any, be filed by the State.

6. List this case on 09.12.2025.

7. Heard on the Bail Applications (IA No. 01 of 2024 and IA No. 01 of 2025).

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Revisionists, Raju Ram and Mahavir, that both the Revisionists were on bail during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal, and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present Revision, they have been in jail for over a year.

9. Learned State Counsel opposes the Bail Applications. However, he fairly concedes that the Revisionists remained on bail during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal.

10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Revisionists deserve to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the present Revision.

11. Accordingly, the Revisionists-Raju Ram and Mahavir shall be released on bail, on their executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court concerned.

12. It is clarified that the grant of bail shall not be treated as a ground for seeking adjournment or for delaying the disposal of the present Revision.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 07.10.2025 Shiksha