Birbal Rajwade vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3228 Chatt

                                                                         Page 1 of 3

                                                                             NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                               CRA No. 1350 of 2021


1.   Birbal Rajwade S/o Mansai Rajwade, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Satipara,
     Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                                                           (On Bail)
                                       Versus
2.   State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Adim Jati Kalyan
     (AJAK), Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.).
                                                                  ---- Respondent

18/11/2021 Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, P.L. for the State/respondent.

Mr. Kaushal Yadaw, Counsel for the Objector.

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

By the impugned judgment dated 29/10/2021 passed by Special Judge (SCST Prevention of Atrocities Act) Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG.) in Special (Atrocities) Case No. 37/2020, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 341 of Indian S.I. for 1 month and fine of Rs. 100/-, Penal Code. in default of payment of fine additional S.I. for 10 days.

Under Section 3(1)(S) of the R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, Scheduled Castes and in default of payment of fine additional Scheduled Tribes R.I. for 1 month.

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

(Both the sentences were 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 appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted. Even after pronouncement of the impugned judgment he has been granted bail for a limited period. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, the appellant be released on bail.

On the other hand, State counsel as well as Counsel for the Objector opposes the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is 6 months, he was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, 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 16th 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