IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Bail Application No.1 of 2024

In

Criminal Revision No. 708 of 2024

Sandeep ......Revisionist (In Jail)

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence: Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, learned counsel for the

Revisionist/Applicant.

Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present application has been moved under Section 430 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the Criminal Revision preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2018, Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand, affirming the conviction of the Applicant/Revisionist under Sections 394, 411, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with a modification of sentence under Section 411

IPC from five years to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.

2. The State’s case, briefly stated, is that on 07.09.2008, an FIR,

being Case Crime No. 26 of 2008, was lodged at Police Station

Vikasnagar by one Rampal Singh, alleging that while returning home, he was intercepted and robbed by three persons, one of whom was later identified as Ashish alias Arvind Kumar, along with two others. The investigation culminated in a charge sheet against Ashish alias Arvind Kumar, Sachin, and the present Applicant/Revisionist, Sandeep, under Sections 394, 411, and 420 IPC. During the trial, the victim is said to have identified the accused persons in a Test Identification Parade and later in court.

3. Learned trial court, after hearing the case, , acquitted the accused Sandeep of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, and to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. In appeal, the appellate court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence under Section 411 IPC, reducing it to three years, while upholding the findings of guilt on all other counts.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Revisionist, Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, contended that the conviction is unsustainable as the Test Identification Parade (TIP), which formed the foundation of the prosecution case, was conducted in an illegal and unreliable manner.

6. It was argued that the victim himself admitted in cross-

examination that he had seen the accused in police custody before the parade, which vitiated the process. It is further submitted that the FIR does not mention the name or description of the Applicant/Revisionist, and there is no recovery connecting him to the alleged incident.

7. It was urged that the TIP, being only corroborative in nature, cannot be relied upon once it stands compromised, and that continued custody of the Applicant/Revisionist would cause grave injustice since he has already undergone substantial imprisonment.

8. Learned Brief Holder for the State, on the other hand, opposed the bail application, submitting that both the trial court and the appellate court have concurrently held the evidence of the victim to be trustworthy.

9. Learned Counsel for the State contended that the Test Identification Parade was duly conducted before a Magistrate and that the identity of the accused stood reaffirmed through in-court identification. It was submitted that the prosecution evidence is cogent, consistent, and credible, and no exceptional circumstance exists warranting suspension of sentence in a case involving an act of violent robbery.

10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records of the courts below. The primary issue raised pertains to the legality and evidentiary value of the Test Identification Parade upon which the conviction principally rests.

11. The purpose of a Test Identification Parade is well-settled. It is meant to test a