2026:UHC:2981 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.753 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 04.04.2026 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2026. Further prayer has been made to allow the application for suspension of sentence and release the applicant on bail during pending of aforesaid Criminal Appeal. 3. An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicant and one Raj Kumar. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both accused persons. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned them to face trial. Co-accused Raj Kumar challenged the proceedings by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.10.2017 on the basis of compromise, and proceedings were quashed qua him. The present applicant, however, faced trial and was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Roorkee, District Haridwar vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2026 under Sections 420 read with 120-B I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine. Against the judgment of conviction, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal along with an application for suspension of sentence, which came to be rejected by the learned appellate court vide order dated 2026:UHC:2981 04.04.2026. Hence, this criminal misc. application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant remained on bail during trial and, therefore, he ought to have been granted bail during pendency of the appeal. It is further contended that the appellate court has not recorded sufficient reasons while rejecting the application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned appellate court, while rejecting the application, has specifically recorded that the applicant has been convicted after full- fledged trial and appreciation of evidence on merits, and no ground is made out for suspension of sentence. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Merely because the applicant was on bail during trial does not confer an indefeasible right to be released on bail after conviction. The appellate court has exercised its discretion judiciously and has assigned reasons, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. At this stage, no exceptional circumstance has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the appellate court are based on relevant considerations. 7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 23.04.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393 398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744635 1E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.23 18:06:05 +05'30'