Chattisgarh High Court
Sonu Rajwade vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 83 of 2021
1. Sonu Rajwade S/o Ram Narayan Rajwade, aged about 21 years, R/o Village
Pasla, Majhapara, Police Station: Surajpur, District: Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
2. Chandan Vishwakarma S/o Nandlal Vishwakarma, aged about 20 years, R/o
Village Pasla, Majhapara, Police Station: Surajpur, District: Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station: AJAK,
Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
15.07.2021 Mr. Anil Gulati, Counsel for the Appellants.
Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. for the State/Respondent.
None present for the complainant/victim even though notice had
been served upon the victim of this case.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A. No. 02/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the Appellants.
By the impugned judgment date 20.03.2020 passed in Special
Case No.03/2019 by the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act),
Surajpur, District: Surajpur (C.G.), the Appellants stands convicted as
mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 354 of IPC RI for two years and fine In default of payment of
amount of Rs.500/-. fine amount additional RI
for one month.
For Appellant No.01.
U/s 506 of IPC RI for 06 months and In default of payment of
fine amount of Rs.500/-. fine amount additional RI
for one month.
For both the Appellants
U/s 3 (1) (w) (i) RI for 01 year and fine In default of payment of
of SC/ST amount of Rs.500/-. fine amount additional RI
(Prevention of for one month.
Atrocities) Act.
For the Appellant No.01.
Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants
have been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court in the judgment without
there being any clinching evidence available on record. He submits that
during trial the Appellants were on bail and after the judgment of the
Trial Court they were granted bail till 14.01.2021 and appeal is likely to
take some more time. Hence, it is prayed that his application may be
allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed
the bail application and submissions made in this respect.
Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.
After perusing the impugned judgment, the statements of the
witnesses and considering this fact that after the judgment of the Trial
Court the Appellants were granted bail and appeal is likely to take some
more time, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the
Appellant on bail.
Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the
appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal
and he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of
this Court on 23.11.2021. He 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 due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Saurabh
