Mo. Mustkeem @ Suhel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3197 Chatt

                                                                           Page 1 of 3

                                                                                NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                                CRA No. 1217 of 2021


1.

Mo. Mustkeem @ Suhel S/o Late Shri Mohammad Shahid @ Dabbu, Aged About 19 Years R/o Khaparganj, Thana City Kotwali Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

----Appellant (In Jail) Versus

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

---- Non-Appellant

17/11/2021 Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/non-applicant.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 30/09/2021 passed by Fifth Upper Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG.) in Sessions Trial No. 44/2019, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 of Indian R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, Penal Code (in short "IPC"). in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 100 days.

Under Section 506 Part 2 of R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, IPC in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 100 days.

(Both the sentences is directed to run concurrently)

Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and bad in law. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has filed to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, co- accused i.e. Abdul Razzak & Saddam Makwana have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27/10/2021 passed in CRA No. 1166/2021, there is no criminal antecedents of the appellant. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, the appellant be released on bail.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application. However, he submits that the appellant has no criminal antecedents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that though the allegation of assault on the victim Akbar Ali is against the present appellant, however looking to the nature of injury sustained by the victim i.e. single injury on the right elbow, the incident occurred on sudden quarrel without any per-meditation between the parties, the medical evidence and the deposition of the victim, co-accused have ready granted bail by this Court, the age of the appellant i.e. 19 years, there is no criminal antecedents of the appellant, the disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, without expressing anything on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to suspend the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant and to release him on bail.

Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 01/2021) is allowed.

It is directed that the execution of substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court 18th February, 2022. He shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and then continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in its due course.

-Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

Chandrakant