[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 19 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
directions
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLA/169/2014
Sanjay Khan And Another
--Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
1. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for appellant no. 1
(Sanjay Khan).
2. Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the materials on record.
4. Vide judgment and order dated
09.05.2014, passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in
Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2004, appellants
have been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 &
302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment
for life.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parites
on the third bail application.
6. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for appellant no. 1
submitted that appellant no. 1 has suffered
actual incarceration for more than eleven
years; with remission, the period of
incarceration is more than twelve years. It is
further submitted that the appellant has no
previous criminal history and there is no
allegation of any misconduct inside jail
during the period of incarceration. She
further submits that the co-accused, namely,
Sri Chand has been granted bail by this
Court, vide order dated 16.07.2025. She
further submits that role assigned to Sanjay
Khan is similar to co-accused (Sri Chand),
therefore, on the ground of parity, he
(appellant - Sanjay Khan) is entitled to be
released on bail.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further
contended that the appeal is not likely to be
heard finally in the near future and
prolonged incarceration without the final
hearing of appeal amounts to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution. She also
submitted that under the prevalent practice,
when a life convict has undergone 50% of
the sentence (considering remission), he
becomes eligible for consideration of bail
pending appeal. In support of her
contention, she has placed reliance upon
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Saudan Singh v. State
of UP (Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2022),
appellant is entitled for consideration of bail
pending appeal, as he has undergone more
than 50 per cent of the sentence
(considering remission).
7. Learned State Counsel does not dispute
the submission raised by learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant,
however, he submits that learned trial court
is justified in recording conviction of the
appellants.
8. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the
prolonged period of incarceration undergone
by the appellant, and the fact that appeal is
not likely to be heard finally in near future,
this Court is of the view that the appellant
no. 2 is entitled to be released on bail during
pendency of the appeal.
9. Accordingly, third bail application is
allowed. Let the appellant no. 1 (Sanjay
Khan) be released on bail in the present
case on his furnishing a personal bond and
two reliable sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of Court
concerned. The appellant shall furnish his
mobile number and correct address to the
SHO concerned and shall keep the same
updated. The appellant shall mark his
presence in the said police station once in
every fortnight. The appellant shall not
commit any offence during the period he is
on bail. If involved in any other criminal
activity, the State shall be entitled to seek
cancellation of bail.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
19.03.2025
Aswal
