Chattisgarh High Court
Dhanesh Kumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 January, 2025
1/5
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2200 of 2024
• Dhanesh Kumar Nishad, S/o Nikhad Ram Nishad, aged about 34 years,
R/o Arang, Police Station - Arang, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police Station -
Tadoki, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Order Sheet
27/01/2025 Mr. Tarun Dansena, 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 28.10.2024 passed by Special Judge
(Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act, 2005),
Kanker, District - North Bastar, Kanker in Special Criminal Case
(Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act, 2005) Case
No. 11/2018, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 420 / 34 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for
three years with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further
undergo additional RI for 10
days.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been convicted for the maximum jail sentence of
three years. He submits that during trial, the appellant was on
bail and he never misused the liberty granted to him during the
trial period. The 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 28.02.2025. 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.
Also heard on I.A. No. 02/2024, which is an application
for exemption from depositing seventy five percent liability
amount as per C.G. Protection of Depositors' Interest Act,
2005.
Counsel for the appellant submits that provisions
contained in Section 16 (2) of the Protection of Depositors'
Interest Act, 2005 is not applicable in criminal cases, rather
the same is applicable in proceeding of recovery initiated by
the Competent Authority / District Magistrate.
Counsel for the State has no objection to allow the
aforesaid application.
Having considered the provisions contained in the
Sections 6 to 13 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors'
Interest Act, 2005 (henceforth, "CPDI Act" ), it is found that
Act has been mainly enacted to protect investors and obtain
money from the property of financial establishments, who
have cheated the citizens. Aforesaid provision has been
enacted even to attach property by the Collector and make it
absolute by District Judge.
Though sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of the CPDI Act
provides that an appeal against the order passed by the
special court shall lie to the High Court within thirty days from
the date of order and sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the
CPDI Act provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless
it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of seventy five percent
deposit of liability with competent authority, in the considered
opinion of this Court, sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the
CPDI Act is not applicable in criminal cases on being appeal
filed against any order, as such, I.A. No. 2/2024 is disposed
of as not essential to be deliberated.
Counsel for the State is directed to call for record of trial
Court.
List this case after receipt of record of trial Court.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Amit
AMIT AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
Date: 2025.01.31
DUBEY 16:59:59 +0530
