Chattisgarh High Court
Jageshwar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Proceeding Through Video Conferencing
CRA No. 80 of 2022
1. Jageshwar Verma S/o Gajanand Verma Aged About 25,
2. Gajanand Verma S/o Bisauha Verma Aged About 43 Years,
3. Smt. Anusuiya Bai W/o Gajanand Verma Aged About 38 Years,
4. Smt. Urmila Bai W/o Jageshwar Verma Aged About 24 Years,
All are R/o Village Amora, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.)
---- Respondent
13/01/2022 Mr. Vipin Singh, Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Chitendra Singh, P.L. for the State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Call for the record.
Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
By the impugned judgment dated 06/12/2021 passed by 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in ST No. 45/2019, the
appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 325/34 of R.I. for 3-3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 -
Indian Penal Code. Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine
additional R.I. for 1-1 month (to all
appellants).
Under Section 294 of Indian R.I. for 3-3 months and fine of Rs. 500 -
Penal Code. Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine
additional R.I. for 15-15 month (to all
appellants).
(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment is per se illegal and bad in law. The trial Court has not properly
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses which has been overlooked by the Trial Court. The appellants
were on bail during trial and even after passing of the impugned judgment
they have been granted bail for a limited period and they did not misuse the
liberty granted to them. They already deposited the entire fine amount.
There is every likelihood that disposal of the appeal is likely to take some
time, therefore, the appellants be released on bail.
On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the
appellants i.e. 25, 43, 38 & 24 years respectively, the maximum sentence
awarded to the appellants is of 3 years, the fact that the appellants were on
bail during trial and even after passing of the impugned judgment they have
been granted bail for a limited period and did not misuse the liberty granted
to them, the entire fine amount have already been deposited by them, 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 appellants and to release
them on bail.
Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 01/2022) 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 9th May, 2022. He shall thereafter continue to 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 them
by the said Court, till disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
-Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Chandrakant
