Tejkumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4785 Chatt

                                                                            Page 1 of 2

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                Order Sheet
                                  CRA No. 740 of 2019
  Tejkumar S/o Ramjani Aged About 37 Years R/o Basti Baradwar, Police Station-
   Baradwar, Distrtict- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                           ---- Appellant
                                          Versus
  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station- Baradwar (Wrongly
   Mentioned Sakti In The Judgment), District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                       --- Respondent

26.07.2022 Mr. Kanhaiya Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, P. L. for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A.No.1/2019, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in ST No. 15/2017, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to further undergo 06 months additional R.I.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, he further submits that appellant has completed more than half of jail sentence and the appeal will take some time for hearing on merits, therefore the substantive jail sentence imposed upon appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail. He placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in 2022 LiveLaw(SC)577.

State counsel does not dispute the fact that the appellant has suffered more than half of the jail sentence.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that the appellant has suffered more than half of the jail sentence and hearing of the appeal will take some more time, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application.

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is allowed.

The substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he is directed to release on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28th September, 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 the disposal of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

List this case for final hearing.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

Judge

parul