Roshan Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 93 Chatt

                                                                             Page 1 of 3

                                                                                 NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  CRR No. 5 of 2022


 1.    Roshan Kumar S/o Pardeshi Chandrakar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village
       Chorbhatthi, Ward No. 1, Sanjay Nagar Kurud, P.S. And Tah. Kurud, Distt.
       Dhamtari (C.G.).
                                                                         ---- Applicant
                                                                                (In Jail)
                                         Versus
 2.   State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Dhamtari Distt.
      Dhamtari (C.G.).
                                                                      ---- Respondent

06/01/2022 Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Shrestha Gupta, P.L. for the State.

Heard on admission.

The revision is admitted for hearing.

Issue notice to the respondent on revision petition, as per rules.

State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of State.

Call for the records of both the Courts below.

Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.

Challenge in this revision filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to the judgment dated 28/12/2021 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2019 upholding the judgment dated 09/04/2019 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 973/2012 convicting and sentencing the applicant as under:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section 337 of Indian Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment Penal Code. of fine additional R.I. for 10 days. Under Section 304A of Indian R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, Penal Code. in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 20 days.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and not based on proper appreciation of the evidence as required under the law. The applicant has been awarded the maximum sentence of 06 months. He has already been deposited the entire fine amount. The applicant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty. Even after pronouncement of the impugned judgment he has been granted bail for a limited period. The disposal of this revision petition is likely to take some time, therefore, the applicant he may 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, short sentence of 06 months awarded to the applicant, he was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty, disposal of the revision is likely to take sometime, 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 applicant and to release him 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 applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision 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 revision.

List this case for final hearing in its due course.

-Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

Chandrakant