Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/266/2025 on 29 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
p
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.266 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the revisionist.
2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain,
Brief Holder for the State.
3. Heard.
4. This criminal revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Criminal Case
No.978 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand vs. Kamal Joshi,
whereby, the revisionist-Kamal Joshi was convicted and
sentenced under Sections 279/338/304-A/427 IPC. Under
Section 279 of the IPC, he was sentenced for three
months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-;
under Section 338 IPC, he was fined only of Rs.1,000/-;
and under Section 304A IPC, he was sentenced to one
year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7,000/-; and
under Section 427 IPC, he was fined for Rs.1,000/- and in
default, he was directed to undergo 60 days additional
simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to
run concurrently and any period spent in jail that shall be
set off. The revisionist has also challenged the judgment
and order dated 03.05.2025 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Champawat in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2024,
Kamal Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby, the
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court has
been affirmed.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
2
revisionist that it is a case of head on collusion of two
motorcycles; one of the motorcycle was driven by the
revisionist and therefore, he pleads that he was not
negligent. Rather it was negligence on the part of the
owner/driver of the Motorcycle bearing No.UK03A-7441.
Therefore, he submits that both the courts erred, in fact
and law by convicting and sentencing the revisionist.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court finds the substance in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the revisionist.
7. Admit.
8. Send for the Trial Court Record.
9. List this case for final hearing on 13.10.2025 after
receipt of the Trial Court Record.
Also heard on Bail Application (IA No.1 of
2025).
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
revisionist/applicant that the revisionist/applicant has
surrendered on 16.05.2025 and since then, he is under
incarceration. It is further submitted by him that during
the pendency of criminal trial as well as the appeal, he
has always been in bail and never misused the bail
granted to him by the learned trial court as well as by the
learned appellate court.
11. On the merits of the case, he advanced the same
arguments which he advanced at the time of admission of
the criminal revision.
12. Per contra, learned State Counsel has supported the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial court as
3
well as by the learned appellate court.
13. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is
of the view that since the revisionist has been convicted
maximum one year sentence, out of which, two and a half
months’ sentence, he has already spent under
incarceration. In this view of the matter, at this stage,
the applicant/revisionist deserves to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.
14. Let the revisionist-Kamal Joshi be released on bail,
during the pendency of this revision, on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned
Magistrate. The sentence part is accordingly suspended.
During the pendency of this revision, the realization of fine
imposed shall also remain stayed. Sentence imposed by
the learned Trial Court shall also remain suspended.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.07.2025
Ravi