Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State And Another" on 29 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
CRLR No. 714 of 2024
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel for the Revisionist.
2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for Respondent No.
4. The present Criminal Revision is preferred against the
judgment and order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the learned
Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2023, "Sageer Ahmad vs.
State and Another", whereby the learned Appellate Court has
dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the Revisionist.
5. The Revisionist has also challenged the judgment and
order dated 19.10.2023, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Kashipur, in Criminal Case No. 2151 of 2016,
pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, Police Station Kashipur, whereby the learned
Trial Court has convicted the Revisionist and sentenced him to
simple imprisonment for six months along with a fine of
₹18,10,000/-.
6. The Lower Court Record has been summoned and forms
part of the record.
7. Admit.
8. List this case on 12.12.2025 for final hearing.
9. Heard on the Bail Application (I.A. No. 04 of 2025).
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Revisionist that
the findings of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court
suffer from illegality and perversity and are liable to be set
aside. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 2 admitted
to not possessing a money-lending licence, and therefore,
there was no occasion for him to advance a sum of ₹15 lakhs
to the Revisionist. Respondent No. 2 also stated that he does
not pay income tax. Moreover, the alleged witnesses, one being
the son of Respondent No. 2 and another his uncle's son, are
interested witnesses. Hence, the entire alleged transaction is
illegal, and no recovery can be made from such a transaction
as it does not constitute a legally recoverable debt.
11. Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for
Respondent No. 2 have opposed the bail application.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Revisionist deserves to be enlarged on bail during the
pendency of the present Revision.
13. Accordingly, the Revisionist - Sagheer Ahmad shall be
released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the condition of
depositing 15% of the fine amount before the concerned Court.
14. It is made clear that the grant of bail shall not be treated
as a ground for seeking adjournments or delaying the disposal
of the present Criminal Revision.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
29.10.2025
Shiksha
