[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 26 February, 2026
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
CRLA No. 322 of 2024
Sher Singh
--Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Ms. Anmol Sandhu and Mr. Kaushal Sah
Jagati, learned counsels for the Appellant.
2. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Bail
Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2024).
4. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 06/07.06.2024, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh
Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2020, "State vs. Sher Singh,"
whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 279 of
the IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' simple
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo fifteen days' additional simple
imprisonment. The Appellant has further been convicted under
Section 337 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo six months'
simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo fifteen days' additional
simple imprisonment. The Appellant has also been convicted
under Section 304 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo seven
years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-,
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months'
additional simple imprisonment.
5. Learned State Counsel primarily objects to the bail
application and submits that, considering the statement of the
eye-witness and other material available on record, it is evident
from the impugned judgment that the Appellant/convict did not
stop his vehicle immediately after the incident and continued
driving for several kilometers (approximately 16 kilometers, as
stated). Referring to the statement of eye-witness PW-2, Sunil
Kumar, it is submitted that had the driver stopped the vehicle at
once, the incident could have been averted. It is further
contended that the conduct of the Appellant reflects gross
rashness and negligence, and therefore, bail ought not to be
granted.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there was
no motive or enmity on the part of the Appellant to commit the
alleged offence and there is no reliable evidence to prove that the
Appellant was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is
further submitted that there are material contradictions in the
prosecution story, which have been wrongly ignored by the Court
below. It is also submitted that the Appellant was on bail during
the trial and never misused the liberty granted to him.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that, at this stage, sufficient grounds exist
for granting bail to the Appellant during the pendency of the
appeal.
8. The Bail Application is allowed. Accordingly, the
Appellant - Sher Singh - shall be released on bail during the
pendency of the present criminal appeal, upon his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
concerned.
9. It is clarified that the grant of bail shall not be treated as a
ground for seeking unnecessary adjournments or for delaying the
disposal of the present criminal appeal.
10. List this case on 15.05.2026.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
26.02.2026
Shiksha
