Abdul Rahman vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2024 Latest Caselaw 722 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Abdul Rahman vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2024

                                                                             Page 1 of 2

                                                                                   NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             CRR No. 556 of 2024
Abdul Rahman S/o Shri Jamaa Khan Aged About 30 Years Occupation Labour, R/o
Ward No. 3, North Jhagrakhand, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Koriya (C.G.)
                                                                            ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District M.C.B. (C.G.)
                                                                       ---- Respondent

01.07.2024 Mr. R.P. Yadav, Advocate for the Applicant.

Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard on application (I.A. No. 01/2024) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.

The applicant has preferred this revision being aggrieved by order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Session Judge Manendragarh, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2023, whereby the learned Additional Judge, has dismissed the appeal of the applicant airming the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh, District Distt Koriya (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.80/2019 convicted the applicant under Section 420 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years with ine of Rs.10,000/- for ofence under Section 420 IPC with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the inding recorded by the trial court regarding conviction is contrary to the evidence and there is no material on record to suggest that the applicant was involved in the commission of ofence. He would submit that during trial the applicant was in jail about 4 months and 11 days and after conviction he is in jail since 12.04.2023. He would further submit that learned Sessions Judge vide its

judgment has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record and has mechanically rejected the appeal, thus the order passed by both the Courts below deserves to be set aside and would pray for releasing the application on bail.

Learned State counsel while opposing the bail application would submit that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and there was sufficient material on record to convict the applicant therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the applicant is in jail since 12.04.2023 and suffered agony of trial for 4 months and 11 days and he has already completed half of the jail sentence, this Court is inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before it on 28.08.2024 and on all other subsequent dates as may be given to him by the trial Court, interval being not less than 6 months, during the pendency of this revision.

C.C. Today.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh