Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Chandra Prakash Katariya on 11 July, 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. 130of 2024
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
The challenge in this revision is made to the
(i) Judgment and order dated 27.09.2017, passed in Criminal Case No. 4948 of 2013, State Vs. Chandra Prakash Katariya, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class/First Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 279, 304A IPC and sentenced thereunder and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 31.10.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2017, Chandra Prakash Katariya Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the appeal"). By it, the order passed in the case was confirmed in appeal.
Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that there is no eyewitness of the incident. Three witnesses of fact, PW1 Nishant Rastogi, PW6 Kapil Chaudhary and PW7 Harinarayan have been examined, but they have not seen the incident. It is argued that it is no evidence case.
Heard.
Admit.
Respondent no.2 is represented. List on 07.10.2024 for final hearing. Heard on Exemption Application IA No.3 of 2024.
The revisionist seeks exemption from surrendering.
It is submitted that the revisionist has been on bail throughout during trial or in appeal. He would submit that the sentence impugned may be stayed, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.
In the case of Shubham Singhal Vs. High Court of Uttarakhand, in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 84 of 2023, the Division Bench of this Court has held that application seeking exemption may be entertained without insisting for surrender of the applicant.
In the case of Sanjay Nagyach Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 898, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court on an application for exemption to surrender, passed the order and required the applicant in that case to furnish bonds.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that the execution of impugned sentence, shall remain suspended during & until the conclusion of the revision, subject to the revisionist executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Exemption Application is disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.07.2024 Jitendra