Bilal Siddiqui vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 550 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Bilal Siddiqui vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 February, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Criminal Revision No.83 of 2026
Bilal Siddiqui                               ...........Revisionist

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another             .........Respondents

Mr. Mehboob Rahi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Ayush Saxena, Advocate for respondent no.2 appeared through video
conferencing.


                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision has been preferred

against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2025,

passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2024, Bilal Siddiqui

vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham

Singh Nagar whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist

has been dismissed and the conviction dated

23.05.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima,

District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Complaint Case

No.10 of 2021, Mahipal Vs. Bilal Siddiqui, under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was

affirmed.

2. There has been a delay of 181 days for

preferring this criminal revision. The reasons have been

disclosed in the Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.2

of 2026.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents do not

deny or dispute the averments made in the delay

condonation application.

5. In view of the above, the delay condonation

application is allowed. The delay in filing the criminal

revision is condoned. The criminal revision is to be

treated within time.

6. There is also Exemption Application (IA) No.4

of 2026 for exempting the revisionist from surrendering

in compliance of the impugned judgment and order. In

view of the compromise arrived at between the parties,

the application for exempting the revisionist from

surrendering is also allowed.

7. In the interaction with the respondent no.2,

Mahipal Singh, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Ayush

Saxena, Advocate, he has acknowledged entering into a

compromise with the revisionist and receipt of an

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in full satisfaction of the

cheque amount and that he does not wish to continue

the case in future.

8. In view of the above, the compounding

application is allowed. The opposite party no.2 and the

revisionist are permitted to compound with the offence

and the impugned judgment and order are hereby

quashed.

9. The criminal revision is disposed of

accordingly.

10. Urgency Application (IA) No.1 of 2026 also

stands disposed of.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) Vacation Judge 03.02.2026 Sanjay

SANJAY

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4 d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001,

KANOJIA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A8 4B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2026.02.03 17:29:22 +05'30'