Rakesh Kumar Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5178 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Rakesh Kumar Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 October, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
                                In
                 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2025

Rakesh Kumar Saini                                      ......Appellant

                               Versus


State of Uttarakhand                                   ....Respondent

Present:
             Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
             Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order

dated 27.08.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2023, State Vs.

Rakesh Kumar Saini, by the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge,

Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304

(II) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

five years with a fine of Rs.10.000/-. In default of payment of fine, to

undergo imprisonment for a further period of two months. He seeks

bail in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. Admit.

4. LCR has already been received.

5. List in due course.

Heard on Bail Application No. 01 of 2025

6. According to the FIR, on the intervening night of 10-

11.02.2023, at 12:15, in a marriage, a Scorpio vehicle bearing

Registration No. HR 70B 7063 was being driven rash and negligent

manner and it hit a marriage procession due to which many person

sustained injuries and one person died.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant was not driving the vehicle. There is no evidence to that

effect. The appellant claims that though he was occupant of the

vehicle, but was not driving the vehicle.

8. Learned State counsel fairly concedes that that no witness

has stated that it is the appellant, who was driving the vehicle.

9. Admittedly, the witnesses have not stated that the

appellant was driving the vehicle. Whether the appellant was sleeping

in the vehicle? If so, was it his responsibility to reveal as to who was

the driver of the vehicle? These and many more questions would find

deliberation during the appeal.

10. Having considered, without adverting much on merits, this

Court is of the view it is a case in which the execution of sentence

should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

13. 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.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 31.10.2025 Jitendra