Bhagwan Das vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 June, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Bhagwan Das vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 June, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail Application
                                 In
               Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2024

Bhagwan Das                                                  ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                       ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

                IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail Application
                                 In
               Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2024

Babu Ram                                               ...... Appellant

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                       ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since both the appeals arise from the same

Sessions Trial, they are heard together.

2. The appellants-Bhagwan Das and Babu Ram have

challenged their conviction and sentence under Sections 395, 397,

342,120-B IPC, recorded on 07/08.02.2024, in Sessions Trial

No.106 of 2016, State Vs. Bhagwan Das and Others. The

appellant Babu Ram has also challenged his conviction under

Section 412 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, recorded

on the same date in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 2016, State of

Uttarakhand Vs. Babu Ram Sharma, by the court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. Heard.

4. The appeal has already been admitted.
2

5. List in due course for final hearing.

6. Heard on Bail Applications (IA) No.1 of 2024.

7. Dacoity was committed in the house of the

informant on 10.03.2016, at 06:00 in the morning. A report was

lodged. According to the prosecution case from both the

appellants the looted articles were recovered.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit

that co-convicts Akash Dua and Lalla Verma, from whose

possession looted articles were recovered, have already been

granted bail; in the instant case, the appellants have been falsely

implicated; there has been no Test Identification Parade

conducted either of the persons or the looted articles; some of the

co-accused have been identified merely based on some clothes,

which were allegedly seen on some CCTV footages; there have

been no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872; during trial, the appellants were on bail.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant Bhagwan Das

would submit that 10 days after the alleged incident, allegedly

recovery was made from the appellant-Bhagwan Das.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant Babu Ram

would submit that more than two months after the alleged

incident, the alleged recovery was made, which is highly

improbable.

11. Learned State Counsel would submit that the

looted articles were recovered from the possession of the

appellants. He admits that no Test Identification Parade was done

either of the persons or the looted articles. He also admits that co-

convicts from whose possession looted articles were recovered,

have already been granted bail.

3

12. 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.

13. The bail applications are allowed.

14. The sentence appealed against is suspended during

the pendency of the appeal.

15. The appellants- Bhagwan Das and Babu Ram be

released on bail during the pendency of the appeal 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.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
06.06.2025

Ravi Bisht