Anil Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2734 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   Order Sheet

                               CRA No. 1154 of 2021

   Anil Yadav S/o Shri Muritram Yadav, aged about 20 years, Occupation: Charwaha
   R/o Village Khudiyadih, Satnami Mohalla, Police Station Bilha, District : Bilaspur,
   Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

   State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur,
   Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Respondent

07.10.2021 Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Singh, P.L. for the State/Respondent. Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard I.A. No.1/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment date 27.08.2021 passed in Special Criminal Case no.25/2018 by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur (C.G.), the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

                  Conviction             Sentence                  In Default

              U/s 451 of IPC       RI for 2 years with a In default of payment
                                   fine    amount     of of     fine    amount
                                   Rs.200/-              additional RI for 1
                                               month.

 U/s 354 of IPC       RI for 2 years with a In default of payment
                      fine    amount     of of     fine    amount
                      Rs.500/-              additional RI for 2
                                            month.

U/s 3 (1) (w-i) (w- RI for 3 years with a In default of payment

ii) of SC/ST Act, fine amount of of fine amount 1989 Rs.500/- additional RI for 2 months.

U/s 2 (Va) SC/ST RI for 2 years with a In default of payment Act, 1989 fine amount of of fine amount Rs.500/- additional RI for 2 months.

It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that conviction against the appellant is erroneous and without the support of evidence of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was on bail during trial and suspension of sentence against him has also been ordered by the learned Trial Court itself under Section 389 (3) of Cr.P.C., and he has not misused the liberty so far, therefore, it is prayed that appellant may be granted bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submissions made in this respect. He submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.

Considered on the submissions and perused the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against this appellant. After due consideration, I feel inclined to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellant 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 07.12.2021. 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 him by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Saurabh