Chattisgarh High Court
Mo. Sabir vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 October, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRR No. 682 of 2021
• Mo. Sabir, son of Jaleel Ahmad, aged about 36 years, resident of village Badvar, Thana
Ramkola, Tahsil Pratappur, District - Surajpur (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramkola, District Surajpur (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
05.10.2021
Shri A.K. Yadav, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/ Non-applicant
Heard on IA No.01/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the applicant during the pendency of the revision.
The applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Pratappur, District Surajpur vide its judgement dated 14-
05-2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 241/2017 in the following manner:-
Conviction U/S Sentence Fine In default of
payment of fine
465 IPC Rigorous imprisonment Rs.1000/- SI for six months
for 03 years
466 IPC Rigorous imprisonment Rs.1000/- SI for six months
for 03 years
Both the Sentences
were ordered to run
concurrently.
468 IPC Rigorous imprisonment Rs.1000/- SI for six months
for 03 years
This sentence was
ordered to run
separately.
201 IPC Rigorous imprisonment Rs.1,000/- SI for six months
for 01 year
120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment Rs.1,000/- SI for six months
for six months
506-part II IPC Rigorous imprisonment Rs. 1,000/- SI for six months
for one year.
All the sentences
were ordered to run
concurrently.
In appeal preferred by the applicant, learned Upper Sessions Judge
Pratappur, District Surajpur in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2019 vide impugned
judgment dated 15th September, 2021 upheld the conviction part of the impugned
judgment and modified the sentence awarded under Section 465 of IPC from
three years to two years and further upheld the other sentences awarded by the
trial Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused/applicant of the offence under
Sections 120-B & 506-B of the IPC.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during trial
and during pendency of the appeal also and he did not misuse the liberty of bail
granted to him. Presently, he is in custody since 15.9.2021, the date of passing of
the impugned judgment. There is no likelihood of the revision coming for hearing
in near future, therefore, sentence awarded to the applicant may be suspended
and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, counsel for the State opposes the prayer for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and also
perused the impugned order. It is stated that applicant was on bail during trial and
also at the appellate stage, the maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is of
three years. There appears to be no likelihood of this revision being heard finally
in near future.
Looking to the above facts, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case in
which substantive sentence imposed on applicant can be suspended and he can
be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application I.A. No. 1/2021 is allowed. It
is directed that substantive sentence imposed on the applicant/accused shall
remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
20th December, 2021 and thereafter as and when directed in this behalf by the
trial Court, till final disposal of the revision. It is made clear that fine sentence is
not suspended.
List this case for further order in due course.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge
D/-
