Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10818 (UTT)

SURINDER KUMAR MITTAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BAC/13/2024 · 2025-08-01

Pankaj Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:6795 SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS CRLR No.766 of 2024 With BAC No.13 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Yash Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant-informant. 2. Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Today, these matters are listed on Substitution Applications (IA Nos.1 of 2025) moved by Manoj Mittal, son of revisionist-Surinder Kumar Mittal, who met with sad demise on 26.01.2025 during the pendency of these matters. 5. The Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionist to challenge the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in Misc. Case No.183 of 2024 Surinder Mittal Vs. Ravindra Brahmachari, and prayed to issue fresh NBW under Section 73 of Cr.P.C. and the Bail Cancellation Application has been filed to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 09.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Anticipatory Bail No.77 of 2024 Ravindra Brahmachari Vs. State of Uttarakhand, in Case Crime No.18 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered 2025:UHC:6795 with P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. 6. Since, there is no provision to substitute the legal heirs of a person, as provided in Civil Law, in a criminal matter and also as the case is triable as per the provision of Chapter XIX Cr.P.C. (Chapter XX of BNSS, 2023) i.e. Cases instituted on a police report, therefore, it can very well be presumed that the State will take reasonable care of the prosecution in main Criminal Revision No.559 of 2024 Ravindra Brahmchari and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, which is filed against the conviction and sentence of revisionists of aforesaid CRLR No.559 of 2024. Hence, Substitution Applications (IA Nos.1 of 2025) appear to be misconceived and are accordingly rejected. 7. As a result, the criminal revision (CRLR No.766 of 2024) and Bail Cancellation Application (BAC No.13 of 2024) have rendered infructuous and the same are dismissed as infructuous. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.08.2025 PN