Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Katle vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 799 of 2022
1. Vijay Katle S/o Bhagau Kathle Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Ghorpendri Police
Station Pandatarai, Distirct - Kabirdham (C.G.)
2. Sonraj S/o Keshlu Banjare Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Ghorpendri Police
Station Pandatarai, Distirct - Kabirdham (C.G.)
3. Mahesh Katle S/o Bhagela Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Ghorpendri Police
Station Pandatarai, Distirct - Kabirdham (C.G.)
---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Kabirdham (C.G.)
---- Respondent
Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicants.
08-08-2022 Shri Ayaz Naved, Government Advocate for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 1/2022, application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail.
The applicants have been convicted and sentenced by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class Pandariya, Dist: Kabirdham (C.G.), in Criminal Case
No.17/2018 on 21-12-2021 as under:-
Sr. No. Section Act Jail sentence Fine sentence Default
stipulation
1. 354/34 Indian Penal R.I. of 2 years Rs.5,000/- Additional R.I.
Code of 4 months
2. 323/34 Indian Penal R.I. of 6 months Rs.1,000/- Additional R.I.
Code of 1 month
Against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, the applicants
preferred an appeal (Criminal Appeal No.27/2021) before the Additional Judge
Kabirdham to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dist: Kabirdham (C.G.), in
which conviction of the applicants under Section 354/34 has been upheld,
substantive jail sentence has been reduced from 2 years to 6 months of R.I. and
also upheld the fine amount with default stipulation vide judgment dated
27-07-2022. Hence, this revision. (it is surprising that Section 354 of IPC provides
one year minimum jail sentence which may extend to five years, despite that
learned appellate Court has given only six months R.I. to the applicants)
It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of hearing of appeal,
complainant and applicants entered into compromise and on the basis of
compromise between them, applicants were acquitted from 323/34 of the IPC.
Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in jail since
27-07-2022 i.e. date of judgment passed by the appellate Court. The applicants
have deposited all the fine amounts. It is further submitted that the applicants
were on bail during trial and appeal also. They have not misused the bail granted
to them. They have a good case to succeed in this revision. Final hearing of this
revision is likely to take considerable time, hence, it is prayed that the substantive
jail sentence imposed upon applicants may be suspended till the disposal of this
revision.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the
submission made by counsel for the applicants.
Considered the submission and perused the impugned order.
Considering the facts situation of the case, particularly considering the short
sentence awarded to the applicants and final hearing of this revision is likely to
take considerable time, hence, I feel inclined to allow I.A. No.1/2022.
It is directed that execution of substantive jail sentence imposed on the
applicants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision and they
shall be released on bail if each of them furnishing a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The applicants shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 12-10-2022 and
thereafter they shall appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the
Registry on this behalf and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent
dates as are given to them by the said Court, till the disposal of the revision.
SD/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge
Amardeep
