Smt. Imrana vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4385 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Smt. Imrana vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 September, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                  Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
                                  In
               Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 2022
Smt. Imrana                                              ............ Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                         ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State.



                                 With
                  Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
                                  In
               Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2022

Sahnawaj alias Rukshar                                   ............ Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                         ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State.




Coram:        Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both these bail applications arise from common

judgment, they are being heard together and decided by this

common order.

2. Instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants

Smt. Imrana and Sahnawaj alias Rukshar against judgment and

order dated 16.11.2022, passed in Sessions Trial No.103 of 2012,

State Vs. Smt. Imrana and another, by the court of Fifth

Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By which, the appellants

have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302, 120-B

IPC, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.

3. Heard on bail applications.

4. According to the FIR, on 18.09.2011, at 08:30 PM, when

the deceased Irfan was on his duty in a Filling Station, three

motorcycle borne assailants came from behind and fired at him,

due to which, he sustained injuries, he was referred to the

hospital when the FIR was lodged. Subsequently, he died.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is a

no evidence case; the appellants have been falsely implicated in

the case; the appellants were on bail during trial; they never

misused the bail.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that both the

appellants were in illicit relationship; PW9 the daughter of the

deceased has stated about it. He also submits that the deceased

was working in a Filling Station. After the death of the deceased, a

cheque of Rs.50,000/- as assistance was given to the appellant

Imrana, but this cheque was recovered from the appellant

Sahnawaj alias Rukshar, which it is argued, substantiates that

both the appellants were in illicit relationship. Therefore, deceased

was killed, who happens to be the husband of the appellant

Imrana. He also submits that both the appellants were arrested

from the house of the appellant Imrana.

7. Without adverting much to the merits of the case,

having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case in

which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the

appellants be enlarged on bail.

8. The bail applications are allowed.

9. The sentence appealed against is suspended during

the pendency of the appeal.

10. The appellants be released on bail during the

pendency of the appeals on their executing a personal bond and

furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each

one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.09.2025 17.09.2025

Sanjay