SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:4553 CRLR No. 201 of 2026 Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J., Mr. Deepak Petshali, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Kushagra Saini, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he has no instructions from the revisionist in the present matter. 5. On the last occasion, there was no representation on behalf of the revisionist. 6. After the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 7. The Criminal Case No. 1768 of 2020 was filed by respondent no. 2 against the revisionist under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar vide order dated 12.03.2026, convicted the revisionist and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,57,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 10,47,000/- was directed to be paid to respondent no. 2 and the remaining was directed to be deposited in the State Treasury. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist was directed to undergo further two months' simple imprisonment. 8. Revisionist challenged the judgment and order dated 12.03.2026, by filing Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2026. Along with the criminal appeal, the revisionist also filed an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee District Haridwar vide order dated 17.03.2026, rejected the said application. Hence, this Criminal Revision. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail of the revisionist was rejected by the appellate court vide order dated 17.03.2026 on the ground that the revisionist did not appear before the learned trial court on the date of pronouncement of the judgment, as a result of which, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him on the basis of conviction, thereafter he surrendered before the Court, after which he is in judicial custody on the basis of conviction. 10. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge observed that the power to suspend the sentence and to grant bail during the pendency of the appeal is discretionary and that the conduct of the revisionist is of material consideration. Accordingly, finding no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist, the appellate court rejected the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate court. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision (No. 201 of 2026) is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 08.06.2026 Shiksha