Uttarakhand High Court
Uttarakhand vs Unknown on 31 December, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLR No. 759 of 2024
With
CRLR No. 900 of 2024
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for the
revisionists.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the
State.
The challenge in these revisions is made
to the following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated
03.02.2024, passed in Criminal
Case No. 360 of 2023, State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Daulat Kunwar and
another, by court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar,
District Dehradun (“the Case”). By it,
the revisionists have been acquitted
of the charge under Section 386,
504 and 506 IPC and convicted
under Section 420 and 120B IPC
and sentenced as hereunder:-
(i) Under Section 420 IPC- To
undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three years with a fine of
Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment
of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of
two months.
(ii) Under Section 120B IPC- To
undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three years with a fine of
Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment
of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of
two months.
(ii) Judgment and order dated
22.10.2024, passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 07 of 2014, Daulat
Kunwar and another Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others, by the
court of Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, District
Dehradun (“the appeal”). By it, the
order passed in the case was upheld.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
According to the FIR, the informant of
the case was facing trial under Sections 467,
468, 471, 420, 120-B, 409 IPC. The
revisionists were known to the informant. The
revisionists assured that if Rs.10 Lakh is given
to them, they would ensure that the informant
is exonerated.
Learned counsel for the revisionists
would submit that even if for the sake of
arguments the prosecution case is accepted in
its entirety, it does not make out a case under
Section 420 IPC. It is argued that according to
the prosecution case, the informant and others
were well known to the revisionists. The
revisionist Daulat Kanwar has contested
election, for which according to the informant,
he had helped financially; as per prosecution,
in the name of police donation, Rs.10 Lakh
was taken, which it is argued, in no manner,
attracts the provisions of Section 420 IPC, at
the most, it may be a case of failed promise.
Having considered, this Court is of the
view that these matters requires deliberation.
Admit.
LCR has already been received.
List on 19.03.2025 for final hearing.
Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2024
in CRLR No. 759 of 2024 and Bail Application
No.1 of 2024 in CRLR No. 900 of 2024
It is argued that the revisionist Shivam
was throughout on bail and the revisionist
Daulat Kanwar was on bail during appeal.
They have never misused the bail.
Having considered, this Court is of the
view that it is a case in which the execution
of sentence should be suspended during and
until the conclusion of the revision and the
revisionists are entitled to bail. Accordingly,
the bail applications deserve to be allowed.
The bail applications are allowed.
The execution of sentence challenged
against shall remain suspended during &
until the conclusion of the revisions.
Let the revisionists be released on bail,
during the pendency of this revision, on their
executing a personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties by each one of them,
each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
31.12.2024
Jitendra