Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Proceedings through Video Conferencing
CRR No.450 of 2021
Rajesh Yadav, S/o Shivkumar Yadav, aged about 22 years, R/o Village
Majhapara, Kepi, P.S. Dhourpur, District Surguja (CG).
---Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Ambikapur, District Surguja
(CG).
---Non-applicant
02.08.2021
Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv. for the State/non-
applicant.
The matter is listed for order on default.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the certified
copy of impugned judgment with covering memo has already
been filed. The same is taken on record.
Heard on admission.
Issue notice to the non-applicant.
Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Dy.G.A. accepts notice on behalf of the
State/non-applicant.
Call for the record of the Court below.
Also heard on I.A. No.1/2021 an application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant during the
pendency of the revision.
This revision has been preferred by the applicant against
the judgment dated 13.07.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.117/2019 by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur,
District Surguja (CG) whereby the appellate Court affirmed the
judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court under
Sections 354 and 451 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC')
and the sentence imposed. The applicant has been convicted
for offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of
Rs.1000/- and offence under Section 451 of Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay
fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
the trial Court has erroneously convicted and sentenced the
applicant and the appellate Court has also committed the
same error. He further submits that the applicant has a good
case on merit. Presently, he is in jail since 13.07.2021, the
date of passing of impugned judgment. There is no likelihood
of the appeal coming for hearing in the near future. He further
submits that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish bail
bonds and will follow all the conditions imposed upon him.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for grant of bail submitting that concurrent findings of
two Courts below are against the applicant. Hence, he is not
entitled for grant of bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and also perused the documents available on
record. The applicant is in jail since 13.07.2021. There
appears to be no likelihood of this appeal being heard finally in
the near future.
Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to allow this
application for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the bail application I.A. No.1/2021 is allowed.
It is directed that substantive jail sentence imposed upon the
applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
revision and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 08.09.2021.
Thereafter, he shall appear before the concerned trial Court on
a date given by the Registry of this Court and on all such
subsequent dates as would be given to the applicant in this
behalf by that Court, till disposal of the instant revision. It is
made clear that fine sentence is not suspended.
List this case for further order in due course.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge
L/-
