Bhupendra Potai @ Pappu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8 Chatt

                                                                         Page 1 of 3

                                                                            NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               CRA No. 1706 of 2021


1.   Bhupendra Potai @ Pappu S/o Madan Singh Potai, Aged About 20 Years,
     R/o Village Alvar Khurd, Thana Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker
     (C.G.).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                                                           (On Bail)
                                        Versus
2.   State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Bhanupratappur, District Uttar
     Bastar Kanker (C.G.).
                                                                   ---- Respondent

03/01/2022 Mr. Parag Kotecha, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent.

Heard on admission.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Call for the record of the Court below.

State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 25/11/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 09/2014, the appellant stands convicted and

sentenced as under:

          Conviction                            Sentence
  Under Section 306         of R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in
  Indian Penal Code.           default of payment of fine additional R.I.
                               for 6 months.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and bad in law. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the other witnesses. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted. Even after pronouncement of the impugned judgment he has been granted bail for a limited period. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, the appellant 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 fact that maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is 03 years, he was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, 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 appellant and to release him on bail.

Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 01/2021) 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 02nd May, 2022. 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 disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in its due course.

-Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

Chandrakant