Chattisgarh High Court
Mayashankar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Proceedings through Video Conferencing
Criminal Revision No.422 of 2021
• Mayashankar Yadav S/o Panjalal Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Khalhe
Para, Sukul Para, Kharoud, Police Station Shivrinarayan District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
12.7.2021 Shri Vivek Singhal, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Raghavendra Verma, Govt. Advocate for the State/
respondent.
Heard on admission.
Issue notice to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the State accepts notice on behalf of the
State/respondent.
Call for the records of the Court below.
Also heard on IA No.01/2021, 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 30.6.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.23/2021 by
the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (CG) whereby the
appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial
Court under Sections 452 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
'IPC'). The appellate Court also maintained the sentence awarded by
the trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and to pay
fine of Rs.500 under Section 452 IPC and RI for 06 months and to pay
fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 324 IPC with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the conviction
and sentence passed by the Courts below suffer from illegality,
impropriety, incorrectness and perversity. The Courts below had
failed to appreciate the evidence and failed to prove the case beyond
the reasonable doubt. He further submits that the prosecution
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, hence the
case is not proved against the applicant. He further submits that the
applicant was on bail during the trial and at appellate stage also and
he has not misused the liberty. Presently, he is in jail since 30.6.2021,
the date of passing of impugned judgment. Since the appeal will take
considerable time for its final disposal, the applicant may be granted
bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
bail application and submits that concurrent findings of the two Courts
below are against the applicant, hence, he is not entitled for grant of
bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the record of the trial Court. It is stated that
the applicant was on bail during the trial and also at the appellate
stage, the maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is of one year.
There appears to be no likelihood of this appeal being heard finally in
near future.
Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to allow the application
for grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No.01/2021 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 15.9.2021. 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 orders in due course.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
Bini
Judge
