Bhikham Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1281 Chatt

                                              1


                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                        Order Sheet
                                       CRR No. 161 of 2022

  Bhikham Sahu S/o Shri Tejram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bakma, P.S.
   Bagbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

                                                                                  ---- Petitioner

                                           Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District -
   Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

2. Dhananjay Mishra S/o Shri Hargovind Mishra, Aged About 40 Years R/o Lalpur, Ward
   Bagbahra, P.S. And Tahsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District :
   Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

                                                                                   ----Non-
       Applicants




11.03.2022          Shri Atul Kumar kesharwani, counsel for the Applicant.

                    Shri Chitendra Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State.

                    Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, counsel for the Non-applicant No.2.

                    Heard on admission.

                    Admit.

                    Also heard on I.A. No.01/2022, an application for suspension of sentence

             and grant of bail.

                    The applicant stand convicted under Sections 138           of the Negotiable

             Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and fine of

             Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. payable to Non-applicant

             No.2/Complainant, by way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

             09-03-2018 passed in Criminal Case No.55/2014 passed by the Judicial

             Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund (C.G.).

                    Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is
                                                2


         innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being

         any clinching evidence against him. He submits that the applicant has already

         undergone 1 & ½ month of jail sentence out of total sentence of three months of

         jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. He also submits that the conviction and

         sentence awarded by the trial Court is based on without appreciation of evidence

         on record and is apparently contrary to law as also the fact that both the parties

         have settled the matter, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged

         on bail.

                On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has formally

         opposed the application for grant of bail.

                Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection for

grant of bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the

material available on record, I am of the opinion that this is the fit case in which

the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2022 is allowed and it is directed that the

substantive jail sentence imposed upon the applicant shall remain suspended and

he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- along

with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his

appearance before the said Court on 12.07.2022 and thereafter to continue to

appear on all such dates as are given to him till final disposal of the revision.

Post this matter for final hearing in its due course.

SD/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Tumane