Suraj Kumar Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1889 Chatt

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 Order Sheet

                            CRA No. 261 of 2021

1. Suraj Kumar Prasad, S/o Kishun Kumar Prasad Aged About 25 Years R/o
   Hathua, Police Station Mirganj, District Gopalganj (Bihar), Present R/o Bazar
   Chowk , Pardhipara, Police Station- Urla, District Raipur (C.G.).

2. Ajay Sahu @ Jageshwar Sahu, S/o Shri Prakash Sahu, Aged About 22
   Years R/o Budeni , Police Station Kharora District Raipur (C.G.)., Present
   R/o Suresh Nagar, Urla Police Station Urla District Raipur (C.G.).

3. Gulab Khute S/o Pawan Khute Aged About 25 Years R/o Urla, Satnami
   Mohalla, Police Station Urla, District Raipur (C.G.).

                                                                  ---- Appellants

                                   Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate- Raipur (C.G.).

                                                                ---- Respondent

23.08.2021 Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, counsel for the Appellants.

Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. for the State/Respondent. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

By the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2021 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 69/2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court, Raipur (C.G.) all the three appellants stands convicted as mentioned below:

                   Conviction            Sentence             In Default

              u/S 341 read with SI for 20 days and In          default     of
 Section 34 of IPC     fine   amount      of payment     of    fine
                      Rs.100/-.             amount     additional
                                            SI for 05 days.

u/S 354 read with RI for 04 years and In           default      of
Section 34 of IPC     fine   amount      of payment     of    fine
                      Rs.5,000/-.           amount     additional
                                            RI for 02 months.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in the judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. He submits that appellants have already undergone two years in jail out of 04 years jail sentence imposed upon them by the concerned trial Court. Hence, it is prayed that their application may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.

Heard both the parties.

Perused the statements of the witnesses and other materials available on record. After going through the statements of the witnesses and further considering the fact that appellants have already undergone two years in jail out of 04 years jail sentence imposed upon them by the concerned trial Court. Without further commenting on other merits of the case, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

On execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10.12.2021. They shall thereafter appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to them by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in its due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Vasant