Uttarakhand High Court
Mr. Vinod Kumar Jemini vs Unknown on 23 April, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2026:UHC:674
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR No. 248 of 2026
With
Bail Appl. No. 1 of 2026
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Vinod Kumar Jemini, learned
counsel with Mr. Ashish Kumar Jemini,
learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. The instant criminal revision has
been preferred by the revisionist Sandeep,
S/o Tej Pal against the order passed by
learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee
District Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 26
of 2026, titled as Sandeep vs. State of
Uttarakhand, whereby the application
moved on behalf of the revisionist for
seeking bail and suspension of sentence
has been rejected.
4. The revisionist herein faced the trial
for the offences punishable under Sections
363 and 506 IPC, arising out of Case
Crime No. 603 of 2018 and the trial court
by judgment and order dated 28.02.2026
convict the revisionist for the offence
punishable under Section 363 IPC by
acquitting him under Section 506 IPC. He
has been sentenced to seven years simple
imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 5000/-
and in default of payment of fine he has to
further undergo two months simple
imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the
conviction and sentence of the judgment
and order dated 28.02.2026, passed by
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 2747 of
2019, the revisionist preferred an appeal
before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge,
Roorkee with an application for seeking
bail and suspension of sentence and the
1st Addl. Sessions Judge admit the appeal
on 06.03.2026 and on the same day by
separate order the application for seeking
2026:UHC:674
bail and suspension of sentence has been
rejected.
5. I perused the order passed by 1st
Addl. Sessions Judge and it is very
surprising that instead of going to the
merits of the case, whether conviction is
bad or not, the learned Judge interpret the
scope of Section 430(1) of BNSS 2023 and
draw an observation that it is not
mandatory to the Appellate Court to
suspend the enforcement of order of
conviction, since, section 430 of BNSS
2023 is directory not mandatory. It
appears that the 1st Addl. Session Judge,
Roorkee without applying its judicial mind
passed the order impugned, though appeal
preferred by the revisionist (convict) is an
statutory appeal which was admitted, and
instead of going with the merit of the case
whether conviction is bad or not, the
learned Judge, interpreted the scope of
Section 430(1)of BNSS 2023.
6. In my opinion the 1st Addl. Sessions
Judge, Roorkee is failed to understand the
scope of Section 430 (1) of BNSS. In one
side he admitted the appeal and other side
he is interpreting Section 430(1) of BNSS
by saying that it is directory and not
mandatory. If the convict preferred an
appeal against his conviction then the
Appellate Court should examine whether
conviction is bad or not which is
completely missing in the order impugned.
7. Heard on bail application no. 1 of
2026.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel
for the revisionist that though he faced the
trial for the offence punishable under
Sections 363, 506 IPC, however, for the
offence punishable under Section 506 IPC
he has been acquitted and is convicted
only for the offence punishable under
Section 363 IPC. Learned counsel further
submits that the revisionist was on bail
during trial, and never misused the same
and after conviction he surrendered and
then moved the bail application. He also
2026:UHC:674
submits that conviction is bad because the
age of the victim was not determined as
per the procedure laid down under the J.J.
Act and furthermore, the victim herself
has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
9. Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief
Holder have not disputed that the
revisionist was on bail during trial and he
never misused the same and have also not
disputed that the appeal against conviction
was already admitted by the learned 1st
Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee on
06.03.2026.
10. After hearing the arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration that the revisionist was
on bail during trial and never misused the
same and maximum sentence, as awarded
by the trial court is seven years simple
imprisonment and the statutory criminal
appeal preferred against conviction has
already admitted, this Court is of the view
that the revisionist deserves for bail during
the pendency of the appeal pending before
the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee.
11. In such view of the matter the
instant criminal revision is allowed. The
order impugned dated 06.03.2026 passed
by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee
in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2026 is
quashed and the conviction and sentence
awarded by the trial court is suspended
during the pendency of Criminal Appeal
No. 26 of 2026 pending before the 1st
Addl. Session Judge, Roorkee, District
Haridwar.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
23.04.2026
Parul
2026:UHC:674