Vivek Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1491 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Vivek Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 January, 2025

                                           1




             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                             CRA No. 1795 of 2024

 •   Vivek Dhruv S/o Dilip Aged About 20 Years R/o Panchsheel Nagar,
     Gurunanak       Ward,   Bhatapara,        Thana   Bhatapara   Shahar,   District
     Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ... Appellant
                                        versus
 •   State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli,
     Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ... Respondent

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

Order Sheet

28/01/2025 Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. for the State/respondent. This is an admitted appeal.

Heard on I.A. No.2/2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.2/2024 is allowed and the delay of 130 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Also heard on I.A. No.1/2024, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in

Sessions Trial No.31/2023, appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

S.No. Conviction Sentence

01. U/s. 341/149 of R.I. for 1 month with fine of Indian Penal Code, Rs.100/- and in default of 1860 payment of fine, additional R.I. for 7 days.

02. U/s. 397 read with R.I. for 7 years.

394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

03. U/s. 307/149 of R.I. for 7 years with fine of Indian Penal Code, Rs.500/- and in default of 1860 payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month.

All sentences are directed to be run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that FIR was lodged against the unknown persons and Test Identification Parade was not conducted in accordance with law. He further submits 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.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant and submits that though, FIR was lodged against the unknown persons, but in Test Identification Parade, complainant (PW-1) has identified the appellant and other co-accused persons. He further submits that said dacoity was committed by the appellant and other co-accused persons in the day light at a public road, i.e., at National Highway

130. It is further submitted that impugned judgment is well reasoned and based on evidence, hence, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

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

Taking into consideration the facts of the case, particularly considering the fact that in Test Identification Parade complainant (PW-1) has identified the appellant and other co-accused persons, hence, I do not 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 is rejected.

As prayed by the counsel for the appellant, list this case along with CRA No.930/2024.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

Digitally signed by DEEPTI DEEPTI JHA JHA NIRALA NIRALA Date:

2025.01.29 13:28:25 +0530