Uttarakhand High Court
Pankaj Tiwari vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No. 1 of 2025 (Bail Application)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2025
Pankaj Tiwari ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.
IA No. 1 of 2025 (Bail Application)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2025
Harish Singh ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since both these appeals arise out from one and the
same Special Sessions Trial, they are taken up and heard together.
2. The challenge in these appeals is made to the conviction
and sentence of the appellants under Sections 323, 341 IPC and
Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”) recorded on
10.03.2025 in Special Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2019, State v. Harish
Singh and another, by the court of Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST),
Pithoragarh. By it, the appellants have been convicted under Sections
2
323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced as
hereunder:-
(i) Section 323 IPC – simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
each. In default of payment of fine, to
undergo additional imprisonment for a
period of two months.
(ii) Section 341 IPC – simple imprisonment for a
period of one month and a fine of Rs. 500/-
each. In default of payment of fine, to
undergo additional imprisonment for a
period of five days.
(iii) Under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act –
imprisonment for a period of three years and
a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. In default of
payment of fine, to undergo additional
imprisonment for a period of one year.
3. The appeals are already admitted.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the bail
applications and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is not made out;
admittedly the place of incident is not a public place; the informant is
3
habitual in making complaints under the provisions of the SC/ST Act
against various persons; the appellants were on interim bail.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the witnesses
have supported the prosecution case.
7. 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.
8. The bail applications are allowed.
9. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeals.
10. Let the appellants be released on bail, during the
pendency of the appeals on their executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each of
them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
11. List the criminal appeals for final hearing in due course.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
28.04.2025
Avneet/