Chattisgarh High Court
Vishnu Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 June, 2024
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 679 of 2024
• Vishnu Sahu S/o Dhanesh Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Surighat, P.S.-Mungeli,
Dist. Mungeli, C.G.
• Dhanesh Sahu S/o Khemhu Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Surighat, P.S.-Mungeli,
Dist. Mungeli, C.G.
• Krishna Sahu S/o Dhanesh Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Surighat, P.S.-Mungeli,
Dist. Mungeli, C.G.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ajak Police Station-Mungeli, Dist. Mungeli, C.G.
---- Respondent
21.06.2024
Mr.Pallav Mishra, Counsel for the Appellants.
Mr. Kishan lal Sahu, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the
State/Respondent.
The victim of the case has appeared through VC from the
DLSA, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
Heard on admission as well as on heard I.A. No. 01/2024,
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Mungeli in Special Case No. 10/2022, the appellants stands
convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:
Appellant no. 1 namely - Vishnu Sahu:-
Conviction Sentence In Default
Under Section 456 R.I. for one year Further R.I. for two
Of IPC and fine of Rs. months
500/-
Under Section 3(1) R.I. for one year Further R.I. for two
(S) of Act, 1989 and fine of Rs. months
500/-
Under Section 3(2) R.I. for six
(VA) of Act, 1989 months(for A-2
only)
Appellant no. 2 namely - Dhanesh Sahu:-
Conviction Sentence In Default
Under Section 456 R.I. for one year and Further R.I. for two
Of IPC fine of Rs. 500/- months
Under Section 3(1) R.I. for one year and Further R.I. for two
(S) of Act, 1989 fine of Rs. 500/- months
Appellant no. 3 namely - Krishna Sahu:-
Conviction Sentence In Default
Under Section 456 R.I. for one year and Further R.I. for two
Of IPC fine of Rs. 500/- months
Under Section 3(1) R.I. for one year and Further R.I. for two
(S) of Act, 1989 fine of Rs. 500/- months
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is a
delay of lodging the FIR against the appellants and there is no eye-
witness in the case. Also the case is not supported by medical
report,therefore, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon them
by the trial Court may be suspended and they may be granted
benefit of bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State
opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
perused the record with utmost circumspection and also perused
the entire evidence, and keeping in view the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that it is a fit
case to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail submitted by the appellants, during the pendency of this
appeal. Therefore, I am inclined to allow this application without
commenting anything on merits of the case.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2023 is allowed. The appellants are
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of
Rs. 5,000/- with one surety before the Additional Registrar
(Judicial). After being released on bail, they shall appear before the
Registry of this Court on 02.09.2024 and thereafter they shall
continue to appear before the Trial Court on a date to be given by
the Registry on this behalf and shall continue to appear there on all
such subsequent dates as are given by the said court till the
disposal of this appeal.
In view of above, I.A. No. 01/2024 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Alfiza
