Chattisgarh High Court
Bikramaditya Singhdeo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2025
1/4
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2232 of 2024
• Bikramaditya Singhdeo, (Wrongly mentioned as Vikram Aditya Singhdeo
in the impugned judgment), S/o Shri Saptanjay Singhdeo, Aged about 51
years, (Mentioned as 48 years in the impugned judgment), R/o Raj
Palace, Jaipatna, P.S. Jaipatna, Distt. Kalahandi (Odisha)
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Order Sheet
16/01/2025 Mr. Kashif Shakeel, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.
Heard.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent.
Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of
State/respondent, therefore, issuance of notice to it, is dispensed
with.
Also heard on I.A. No.1/2024, which is an application under
Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant during
pendency of the appeal.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 28.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Raipur, District Raipur in Sessions Case No. 270 of 2022, the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-
S.No. Conviction Sentence
01. U/s. 308 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for
three years with fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine amount ,
to further undergo
additional RI for one
month.
02. U/s. 30 of the Arms Act. Simple imprisonment for
six months with fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount ,
to further undergo
additional RI for two
months.
Both the jail sentences
were ordered to run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has been convicted for the maximum jail sentence of three years
and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
He submits that during trial, the appellant was on bail and his jail
sentence has also been suspended by the trial Court and he never
misused the liberty granted to him during the bail period. He
submits that entire fine amount has already been deposited by the
appellant. It is further submitted that appellant has a good case to
get success in appeal, therefore, he prays that application for
suspension of sentence of the appellant may be allowed and
sentence may be suspended till the decision of this appeal.
On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for grant of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court carefully.
Looking to the short term sentence awarded to the appellant
and considering the fact that the appellant was on bail during trial
and had never misused the liberty during the bail period, I feel
inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant.
In view of above, I.A. No.1/2024, application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant is allowed.
The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant by
the learned trial Court is hereby suspended. He shall be released
on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 18.02.2025. He shall thereafter appear before the
concerned 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, interval being not less
than 6 months, till final disposal of this appeal.
List this matter after receiving of record of the trial Court.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
AMIT by AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
Date: 2025.01.20
DUBEY 10:40:27 +0530
