Mahadev Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 742 Chatt

                                                  1

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            Order Sheet
                                      CRA No. 1734 of 2017
     Mahadev Yadav S/o Shri Bharat Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Themli, Police
     Station Mainpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,

                                                                                       ---- Appellant

                                               Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband,
     Chhattisgarh.,

                                                                                    ---- Respondent

11.02.2022 Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2020, which is the repeat application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail. Earlier application was rejected on 05/03/2018.

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

09.08.2017 passed by Special Judge, under Atrocities Act, Raipur (C.G.) in Special

Case No.26/2014, the Accused/appellant stands convicted under Sections 450, 376

of IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-,

R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/- & life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-

respectively, with usual default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely

implicated in connection with the alleged crime. It is contended further that according

to the prosecutrix, she was beaten by the appellant but as per the medical report, no

such injury has been found. It is contended further that as the appellant is in jail since

02/12/2014, the appeal is likely to take some time for its final disposal and therefore,

he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State while referring to

the statement of the prosecutrix has submitted that the appellant is not entitled to be

released on bail.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

carefully.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the

nature of evidence available on record, without further commenting on merits, we

are of the opinion that present is a fit case to suspend the jail sentence imposed

upon the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2020 is allowed.

It is directed that the 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.50,000/- with one surety

in like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant is not required to give

his appearance anywhere until and unless otherwise directed by this Court.

                              Sd/-                                       Sd/-

                      (Sanjay S. Agrawal)                       (N.K.Chandrawanshi)
                            Judge                                      Judge

Kamde