Uttarakhand High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 October, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.1140 of 2025 for Second Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2018
Gurmeet Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
And
Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 2018
Gurmeet Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, Advocate for
the appellant, through video conferencing.
Mr. B.N. Maulkhi, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The Criminal Appeal no.331 of 2018 has been
preferred against judgment and order dated 18.09.2018, passed in
Sessions Trial No.351A of 2013, State Vs. Gurmeet Singh, by the
court of Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellant
has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC. The Criminal Appeal no.332
of 2018 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
18.09.2018, passed in Sessions Trial No.353 of 2013, State Vs.
Gurmeet Singh, by the court of Sessions Judge, Udham Singh
Nagar. By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Heard.
3. These are admitted appeals.
4. List on 30.12.2025 for final hearing.
5. Heard on Second Bail Applications (IA) No.1140 of
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is in custody for more than 9 years 11 months now; he
is 72 years of age; there are less chances of appeal being heard in
near future.
7. Learned State Counsel admits that the appellant is
72 years of age and he is in custody for more than 9 years 11
months.
8. It is another admitted fact that today, co-convict
Lakhvinder @ Lakhi, has been granted bail on the same case,
based on the period of incarceration, which is slightly more than
the period of custody, which the appellant has already undergone.
9. Having considered the period of incarceration; the
age of the appellant; and other attending factors , this Court is of
the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence
should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. The sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeals.
12. The appellant be released on bail during the
pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.10.2025
Ravi Bisht
