Reserved on – 01.12.2025

Delivered on -7.1.2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2015

Sunil Singh Panwar ….....Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Ashok Drall, Advocate with Ms. Aashi Drall, Advocate for

the appellant.

Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

JUDGMENT

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and

order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2014, State

of Uttarakhand v. Sunil Singh Panwar, by the court of District and

Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. By it, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a

fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo

further imprisonment for a period of two years.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows. The

deceased Sunita Devi was married to one Balbir Singh Chauhan in the

year 2005. They were blessed with a baby boy. But, after two and a

half years of marriage, Balbir Singh Chauhan died. The deceased was

working in an Ashram after the death of her husband. In the year

2010, she was transferred to Bhatwari Branch of the Ashram , where

she was staying in a rented accommodation, The family members of

the deceased Sunita had persuaded her to remarry after the death of

2

her first husband, but, she was reluctant to it. Finally, on 03.06.2013,

the deceased Sunita married to the appellant without informing her

family members. At that time, her son was 7-8 years of age. For about

two months, the relationship between the deceased and the appellant

was cordial, but thereafter, the appellant started beating her and

pressurizing her to leave her son. The appellant had also taken the

ATM card of the deceased. According to the prosecution, in the late

evening of 30.11.2013, the appellant killed his wife, the deceased

Sunita in his house by strangulation. A report of the incident, Ex. A1,

was lodged by the father of the deceased PW 1 Chait Singh, based on

which chik FIR was recorded at Police Station Maneri Bhatwari,

Uttarkashi on 01.12.2013 at 05:05 p.m. and Case Crime No. 17 of

2013 under Section 302 IPC was lodged against the appellant. Extract

of general diary is Ex. A-11. The postmortem of the deceased was

conducted by PW 9 Dr. Amit Gairola on 01.12.2013 at 04:00 p.m. He

found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-

“1. Ligature mark, 7 x 0.5 c.m. present on left

side neck starting from mid of neck till left

angle of mandible.

2. Ligature mark 4 x 0.5 c.m., two c.m. below

left ear lobule extending laterally backward.

3. 5 c.m. gap between above ligature.”

3. According to the doctor, the cause of death is asphyxia

due to strangulation.

3

4. Before postmortem, the inquest of the deceased was

conducted on 01.12.2013 in the morning. The inquest report is Ex.

A-5. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation. He prepared

a site plan, Ex. A-14 . He also took into custody the Chunni , which

according to the appellant, the deceased had used for hanging. Its

memo Ex. A-17 was prepared. After investigation, the charge sheet,

Ex. A-20 was submitted against the appellant.

5. On 01.03.2014, charge under Section 302 IPC was

framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as

many as 15 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Chait Singh, PW 2 Smt. Kung

Dei, PW 3 Pravendra Rana, PW 4 Mst. Dhruv Chauhan, PW 5 Smt.

Vineeta Rana, PW 6 Smt. Manjeeta alias Manju, PW 7 Ambika Prasad

Kuriyal, PW 8 Mohan Singh Dobra, PW 9 Dr. Amit Gairola, PW 10

Jagmohan Singh Rawat, PW 11 SI Gajendra Singh Kunwar, PW 12

Savita Das, PW 13 constable Sunil Kumar Jain, PW 14 SI Vijay Bharti

and PW 15 SI Manohar Singh.

7. After the prosecution evidence, the appellant was

examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(“the Code”). According to him, on the date of incident, the deceased

had returned home at 06:13 in the evening and in the meanwhile, the

appellant received a phone call from his sister-in-law Manju. While he

was still on telephone, the deceased committed suicide in the inner

room by hanging herself by using a Chunni . The appellant immediately

told his sister-in-law Manju that the deceased had committed suicide.

He brought the deceased down from the hook, gave her water,

4

informed police, called a vehicle and took the deceased to hospital,

where she was declared brought dead.

8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

the court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and

sentenced as stated hereinbefore.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not a

case under Section 302 IPC. The deceased had committed suicide by

hanging. At the time, when the deceased committed suicide, the

appellant was talking to PW 6 Smt. Manjita alias Manju, his sister-in-

law and when he noticed that the deceased had committed suicide, he

immediately told PW 6 Manjita alias Manju that the deceased had

committed suicide; since beginning, the appellant is claiming that the

deceased had committed suicide; it is a case of partial hanging; the

post mortem report also suggests that it is a case of hanging. He

would refer to the statements of the witnesses and the postmortem

report to substantiate his arguments. In fact, reference has been made

to medical jurisprudence, as well.

11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that it

is a case of death by strangulation, which has been stated by the

doctor conducting the postmortem and it is so specifically recorded in

the postmortem report as well.

12. One of the arguments that has been made on behalf of

the appellant is that the appellant was not put all the incriminating

5

circumstances under Section 313 of the Code so as to give an

opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances against him in

the evidence. But, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that

at this stage, no purpose would be served if the matter is remanded

back for trial at the stage of 313 of the Code because the appellant has

been in custody for a long and keeping in view the prejudice, which

has been caused to the appellant by not examining him under Section

313 of the Code as per law, in view of the available circumstances, the

appellant deserves acquittal.

13. Before the arguments are appreciated, it would be apt to

examine what the witnesses have stated.

14. PW 1 Chait Singh is the informant. He is the father of the

deceased. He has narrated the entire story. According to him, the

deceased was married to one Balbir Singh Chauhan in the year 2005

and they were blessed with a baby boy, who was 7-8 years of age on

the date of examination of this witness. Balbir Singh Chauhan died

two and a half years of the marriage. The deceased started working in

Bhuwneshwari Mahila Ashram . In the year 2010, she was transferred

to Bhatwari Branch of the Ashram, but she was staying in a rented

accommodation. According to this witness, the deceased was

persuaded by her family members to remarry, but she was not

agreeable to it, in view of the future of her son. But, subsequently on

03.06.2013, she married the appellant. Initially, they were fine but two

and a half months of their marriage, the deceased started complaining

against him. She would submit that the appellant would beat her and

would ask her to leave her son Dhruv. This witness also tells that the

appellant would come in a drunken state every day. He had also taken

6

the ATM card of the deceased. On 30.11.2013, at 05:00 in the

morning, the deceased had telephoned the wife of this witness. Again,

she called in the morning at about 06:00 -06:30. She was crying and

told that the appellant did maarpeet with her. The appellant had

blamed that she had stolen his money. The appellant demanded the

money from her. The wife of this witness told the deceased that she

should come to Uttarkashi but the deceased expressed helplessness

saying that she did not have money. The same day, PW 5 Smt. Vineeta

Rana, who was sister-in-law of the deceased talked to the deceased

and the appellant. The appellant was drunk. He was advised not to do

maarpeet with the deceased. The deceased had then told that she had

already taken another room on rent in Bhatwari and she had left her

son with one Asha Didi and in the morning she would shift and would

be separate from the appellant. On the same day, at about 9:00-9:30

p.m., PW 6 Smt. Manjita alias Manju, sister of the deceased, made a

call to her sister-in -law PW 5 Smt. Vineeta Rana and told her that

there was a lot of noise in the house of the deceased; she was crying

and while PW 6 Smt. Manjita alias Manju was talking to the appellant,

he suddenly disconnected the phone. Thereafter, the phone did not get

through and then the appellant told that the deceased has committed

suicide. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased PW 3 Pravendra Rana

telephoned the deceased that she should not do anything in the night.

Next day morning, they visited the hospital and saw the deceased lying

in the hospital, blood was coming out from her mouth and the next

day, he lodged a report.

7

15. PW 2 Smt. Kung Dei is the wife of PW 1 Chait Singh and

PW 3 Pravendra Rana, the son of PW 1 Chait Singh, have corroborated

the statement of PW 1 Chait Singh.

16. PW 4 Mst. Dhruv Chauhan is the son of the deceased. He

has stated that the appellant would misbehave with the deceased; he

would beat them. He also tells that before marriage of the deceased,

the appellant would love him.

17. PW 6 Smt. Manjita alias Manju is the sister of the

deceased. She has also corroborated the statement of her father, PW 1

Chait Singh. She has narrated as to what happened on 30.11.2013.

According to her, on 30.11.2013, at 06:30 in the morning, the

deceased telephoned her and while crying, she told that she has taken

a room on rent and she would shift the room; she had already shifted

her son. Again, at 08:30 in the evening, the deceased had called her.

She responded at about 09:00 p.m. and called at the phone of the

appellant. She tried to make the appellant understand that he should

not drink. But, the appellant told that the deceased was lying. At the

same time, the deceased took the phone from the appellant and told

that she was not lying, instead the appellant was lying. In the

meanwhile, the deceased and the appellant snatched the phone from

each other. The appellant then told this witness to wait for a minute.

This witness heard someone crying on the telephone. This witness

asked the appellant as to what had happened, but the appellant

switched off both his phone and the phone of the deceased. This

witness repeatedly called the appellant. After 7-8 minutes, she could

get through at the phone of the appellant and questioned him as to

why did he switch off the phone and at that time the appellant told

8

that the deceased has committed suicide. This witness questioned the

appellant that no one can commit suicide by hanging in such

circumstances. According to PW 6 Smt. Manjita alias Manju, the

appellant killed the deceased by strangulation. Thereafter, this witness

telephoned PW 5 Smt. Vineeta Rana, her sister-in-law. PW 5 Smt.

Vineeta Rana has also stated about it.

18. PW 7 Ambika Prasad Kurial was a co-worker of the

deceased. He has stated about the remarriage of the deceased and the

appellant and the strained relations of the deceased and the appellant.

19. PW 8 Dr. Mohan Singh Dobra is the incharge Medical

Officer at PHC Bhatwari. According to him, on 30.11.2025 at 09L15 in

the evening, the appellant brought the deceased dead in the hospital,

of which the entry was made in the register, Ex. A-2.

20. PW 9 Dr. Amit Gairola had conducted postmortem of the

deceased. The injuries detected by him on the person of the deceased

have already been noted hereinbefore. This witness has proved the

post mortem report. According to him, the cause of death was

asphyxia due to strangulation.

21. PW 10 Jagmohan Singh Rawat has simply stated that the

deceased wanted to shift in his house. She had inquired from him on

30.11.2013.

22. PW 11 SI Gajendra Singh Kunwar was the Sub Inspector

at Police Chowki Bhatwari. After the incident, he had visited the house

of the appellant. He has stated that in the two rooms, there were beds

and some articles were tied; in the inner room, the articles were

9

scattered. This witness has proved certain general diary entries about

inquest, etc.

23. PW 12 Savita Das has stated about the inquest and

forwarding of the dead body for post mortem.

24. PW 13 constable Sunil Kumar Jain has proved the chik

FIR and the extract of the general diary entries.

25. PW 14 SI Vijay Bharti had conducted the investigation in

the matter. He has stated about the steps taken by him.

26. PW 15 SI Manohar Singh finally conducted the

investigation and submitted the charge sheet. He has stated about the

steps taken by him during investigation.

27. On behalf of the appellant mainly post mortem report

and the sequence of the events have been highlighted. It is argued that

the opinion of PW 9 Dr. Amit Gairola is not in accordance with the

medical jurisprudence. The post mortem report does not establish that

it is a case of strangulation. It is argued that there was blood dribbling

out from the mouth, which is a sign of suicide; larynx was not

fractured, therefore, it is argued that it rules out strangulation. Eyes

were closed, which, it is argued, happens in the case of suicide. It is

argued that in order to conclude that the death was due to

strangulation, the ligature ought to have been examined, which is not

done; the ligature is not complete circle; two ligature marks are

possible in case of partial hanging. Learned counsel submits that Ex.

A-14, the site plan, proves that it is not a case of strangulation.

According to him, the height of the roof is 8 feet 4 inches; the hook on

10

the roof is 4 inches in length; the height from the bed to the hook is 6

feet three inches and the bed is 1 foot 7 inches in height. It is argued

that in such a scenario, when ligature was a Chunni, an acrylic

material, two ligature marks are possible; there have been no marks of

struggle on the place of incident, which also rules out strangulation.

28. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 of

the Code has been challenged on the ground that all the incriminating

circumstances have not been placed to the appellant. But, as stated, it

has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that now this Court

may decide the appeal keeping in view the prejudice that has been

caused to the appellant by not giving an opportunity to explain all the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence.

29. Section 313 of the Code is as follows:

“313. Power to examine the accused .—(1) In every inquiry or

trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any

circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the

accused put such questions to him as the Court

considers necessary;

(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have

been examined and before he is called on for his

defence, question him generally on the case:

Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed

with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his

examination under clause (b).

(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is

examined under sub- section (1).

(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by

refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.

11

(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into

consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him

in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers

may tend to show he has committed.

(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in

preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the

Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient

compliance of this section.”

30. A bare perusal of it makes it abundantly clear that the

accused should be personally given an opportunity to explain the

circumstances appearing against him in the evidence.

31. In the instant case, multiple witnesses have stated

against the appellant. PW 6 Smt. Manjita alias Manju is categorical as

to what had happened on the date of incident. She has stated that

while she was still talking to the appellant, she heard the cries. She

has also stated about snatching of the mobile phone, switching off the

mobile phone by the appellant, not only his phone but also the phone

of the deceased, and after 7-8 minutes, when he was contacted, he

revealed that the deceased had died. This was not put to the appellant.

32. It has been stated by the witnesses that the deceased

could not have commit suicide. She was in advanced stage of

pregnancy. She wanted to separate from the appellant. She had

already taken a room on rent. She had packed her articles. She had

already left her son at Asha Didi’s house. PW 4 Mst. Dhruv Chauhan,

the son of the deceased has also stated that the appellant would quite

often beat the deceased and this witness and the deceased had told

this witness that she would be coming after taking her articles. It is

stated by the witnesses that the deceased was drunk on the date of

12

incident. These and all other incriminating circumstances were not put

to the appellant.

33. In Question 11, the appellant has simply been asked as

to whether he has heard the statements of PW 1 Chait Singh, PW 2

Smt. Kung Dei, PW 3 Pravendra Rana, PW 4 Mst. Dhruv Chauhan, PW

5 Smt. Vineeta Rana, PW 6 Smt. Manjita alias Manju, PW 7 Ambika

Prasad Kuriyal, PW 8 Dr. Mohan Singh Dobra, PW 9 Dr. Amit Gairola ,

PW 10 Jagmohan Singh Rawat, PW 11 SI Gajendra Singh Kunwar, PW

12 Savita Das, PW 13 constable Sunil Kumar Jain, PW 14 SI Vijay

Bharti and PW 15 SI Manohar Singh? What he has to say about it?

34. This question is most complex and vague. The appellant

has not been asked to explain the incriminating circumstances that

have been stated against him by the witnesses. This is not an

examination under Section 313 of the Code of the appellant, in

accordance with law.

35. What would be its effect? Should this Court by keeping in

mind the prejudice caused to the appellant by not placing to him all

the incriminating circumstances that had appeared against him in the

evidence, decide the case or should the Court remand the case?

36. In the case of Nar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1

SCC 496, in a case of offence under Section 302 IPC, the forensic

science laboratory report was not put to the appellant. The arguments

that were made in the case have been noted in para 6 of the judgment,

which are as follows:-

13

“6. ………….. contended that none of the circumstances relied upon

by the courts below had been established beyond reasonable doubt

and those circumstances, either cumulatively or individually, were

insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The learned Senior

Counsel mainly contended that the only incriminating circumstantial

evidence against the appellant was Ext. P-12 FSL report and the

same was not put to the appellant while he was being questioned

under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was submitted

that Section 313 CrPC makes it mandatory to put all the

incriminating evidence and circumstances to the accused and Ext.

P-12 FSL report, which is the basis for conviction of the appellant,

has not been put to the accused and non-questioning of the accused

as to the vital piece of evidence is fatal to the prosecution case and

vitiates the conviction. Reliance was placed upon State of

Punjab v. Hari Singh [(2009) 4 SCC 200 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 243]”

37. After discussing the law on this point, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court summed up the law on this point in para 30 as below:-

“30. Whenever a plea of omission to put a question to the accused

on vital piece of evidence is raised in the appellate court, courses

available to the appellate court can be briefly summarised as under:

30.1. Whenever a plea of non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC is

raised, it is within the powers of the appellate court to examine and

further examine the convict or the counsel appearing for the accused

and the said answers shall be taken into consideration for deciding

the matter. If the accused is unable to offer the appellate court any

reasonable explanation of such circumstance, the court may assume

that the accused has no acceptable explanation to offer.

30.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellate

court comes to the conclusion that no prejudice was caused or no

failure of justice was occasioned, the appellate court will hear and

decide the matter upon merits.

30.3. If the appellate court is of the opinion that non- compliance

with the provisions of Section 313 CrPC has occasioned or is likely to

have occasioned prejudice to the accused, the appellate court may

direct retrial from the stage of recording the statements of the

accused from the point where the irregularity occurred, that is, from

the stage of questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC and

14

the trial Judge may be directed to examine the accused afresh and

defence witness, if any, and dispose of the matter afresh.

30.4. The appellate court may decline to remit the matter to the trial

court for retrial on account of long time already spent in the trial of

the case and the period of sentence already undergone by the convict

and in the facts and circumstances of the case, may decide the

appeal on its own merits, keeping in view the prejudice caused to the

accused.”

38. In the instant case, it has been argued that the appellant

is in custody for a long, therefore, the matter may not be remanded

back to the trial court. Similar argument was raised in the case of Nar

Singh (supra ). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 31 and 32 of the

judgment observed as follows:-

“31. On the question of remitting the matter back to the trial court

on the ground of non-compliance with mandatory provisions of

Section 313 CrPC, the learned counsel for the appellant contended

that in the present case, the accused is in custody for more than

eight years and the accused person cannot be kept under trial

indefinitely and that the accused has a right to speedy trial. The

learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court

in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992

SCC (Cri) 93] . In paras 63 and 64 of the said judgment it was held

as under : (SCC p. 259)

“63. In Machander v. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1955

SC 792 : 1955 Cri LJ 1644] this Court observed that while it

is incumbent on the Court to see that no guilty person

escapes, it is still more its duty to see that justice is not

delayed and accused persons are not indefinitely harassed.

The scales, the Court observed, must be held even between

the prosecution and the accused. In the facts of that case,

the Court refused to order trial on account of the time already

spent and other relevant circumstances of that case.

64. In S. Veerabadran Chettiar v. E.V. Ramaswami

Naicker [AIR 1958 SC 1032 : 1958 Cri LJ 1565] this Court

refused to send back proceedings on the ground that already

a period of five years has elapsed and it would not be just

and proper in the circumstances of the case to continue the

15

proceedings after such a lapse of time. Similarly, in Chajoo

Ram v. Radhey Shyam [(1971) 1 SCC 774 : 1971 SCC (Cri)

331] the Court refused to direct a retrial after a period of 10

years having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case. In State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla [(1972) 3 SCC 504 :

1972 SCC (Cri) 597] , though the Court found the acquittal of

the accused unsustainable, it refused to order a remand or

direct a trial after a lapse of 20 years.”

32. While we are of the view that the matter has to be remitted to the

trial court for proceeding afresh from the stage of Section 313 CrPC

questioning, we are not oblivious of the right of the accused to

speedy trial and that the courts are to ensure speedy justice to the

accused. While it is incumbent upon the court to see that persons

accused of crime must be given a fair trial and get speedy justice, in

our view, every reasonable latitude must be given to those who are

entrusted with administration of justice. In the facts and

circumstances of each case, the court should examine whether

remand of the matter to the trial court would amount to indefinite

harassment of the accused. When there is omission to put material

evidence to the accused in the course of examination under Section

313 CrPC, the prosecution is not guilty of not adducing or

suppressing such evidence; it is only the failure on the part of the

learned trial court. The victim of the offence or the accused should

not suffer for laches or omission of the court. Criminal justice is not

one-sided. It has many facets and we have to draw a balance

between conflicting rights and duties.”

39. In para 34, in the case of Nar Singh (supra ), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court further observed as follows:-

“34. In our view, the accused is not entitled to acquittal on the

ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section

313 CrPC. We agree to some extent that the appellant is prejudiced

on account of omission to put the question as to the opinion of the

ballistic expert (Ext. P-12) which was relied upon by the trial court

as well as by the High Court. The trial court should have been more

careful in framing the questions and in ensuring that all material

evidence and incriminating circumstances were put to the accused.

However, omission on the part of the Court to put questions under

Section 313 CrPC cannot enure to the benefit of the accused.

”

16

40. In the instant case, the examination of the appellant

under Section 313 of the Code is not in accordance with law. In one

question, the appellant was asked as to whether he has heard the

statements of all the 15 witnesses and what he has to say? This is

most defective examination under Section 313 of the Code. The

statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot be read against the

appellant. If it is so, and the Court proceeds to decide the case, there

remains nothing for decision. Therefore, after considering all the

aspects of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that non-

compliance of the provisions of Section 313 of the Code may occasion

prejudice to the accused. Therefore, the matter should be remanded

for retrial from the stage of recording the statement of the appellant

from the point where the irregularity occurred i.e. from the stage of

questioning the appellant under Section 313 of the Code and the Trial

Judge may be directed to examine the appellant afresh and the

defence witness, if any, and dispose of the matter afresh.

41. It is true that there is a lot of delay in disposal of this

appeal and it infringes upon the right of the appellant to speedy trial.

But, in fact, it is an error of the court. It is a failure on the part of the

trial court. The victim of the offence or the appellant should not suffer

for the latches or omission of the court. As held in the case of Nar

Singh (supra ), “Criminal justice is not one-sided. It has many

facets and we have to draw a balance between conflicting rights

and duties”.

42. Accordingly, the mater needs to be remanded back.

17

43. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is

set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for

proceeding the matter afresh from the stage of recording the

statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code. The trial

court shall examine the appellant afresh under Section 313 of the

Code in the light of the observations made in the judgment and in

accordance with law. Each incriminating circumstance should be

specifically put to the accused and in a separate question, so as to

afford him an opportunity to explain. The appellant shall also be

given an opportunity to adduce his defence witness, if any. The trial

court shall thereafter, accordingly, decide the matter.

44. We request the trial court to expedite the matter and

decide the matter, preferably within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of this judgment along with the lower court record.

45. Since, we are setting aside the conviction imposed upon

the appellant, the appellant is at liberty to move for bail, if he is so

advised. If such a bail application is moved, it shall definitely be

decided in accordance with law. It is also made clear that we have not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

46. The appeal is disposed of as above.

47. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record

be forwarded to the court concerned for onward compliance.

(Alok Mahra, J.) (R avindra Maithani, J)

07.01.2026 07.01.2026

Avneet/