Chattisgarh High Court
Jeetram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 226 of 2025
1 - Jeetram Yadav S/o Nandu Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
Barpali, Belihadeeh, Police Station Shyang, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Hriday Yadav S/o Nandu Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
Barpali, Belihadeeh, Police Station Shyang, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)
... Applicants(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station Ajaks, District Korba (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
05/03/2025 Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Shri
by SUGUNA Anil Gulati, counsel for the appellants.
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.03.07
11:54:46 +0530 Ms. Priya Sharma, PL for the State.
None appeared for the prosecutrix though notice has
been served.
The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Korba, District Korba
(CG) in Special Criminal Case No. 31/2017 as under:
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 325/34 IPC RI for 2years and fine of Rs.
1,000/- in default of fine,
further undergo RI for one
month
U/s. 294 IPC RI for 3 months and fine of
Rs. 500/- in default of fine to
further undergo RI for 10
days
U/s. 323/34 IPC RI for 01 year and fine of Rs.
500/- in default of fine to
further undergo RI for one
month
U/s. 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST RI for one year and fine of
Rs. 1,000/-,in default of fine
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act
to further undergo RI for one
month
All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
Heard on I.A. No. 01, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Prosecution case in brief is that report was lodged by
the complainant alleging that on 13.06.2017 at about 4.00
pm, when he went to the house of his uncle for taking meals,
one Deepak Yadav asked him as to why he was standing
there and abused him in filthy language. When the
complainant objected and went to the house of his uncle and
called him. At that point of time, the appellants came there
abused and assaulted the complainant with hands and fists
his uncle intervened and thereafter the appellants threw
stones and assaulted with club. Based on the said report,
offence under the above sections was registered against the
appellants.
It has been argued by counsel for the appellants that
the appellants were on bail during trial and after
pronouncement of judgment impugned, the appellants have
been granted bail. He further submits that the appeal is likely to
take sometime for its final disposal therefore they may be
released on bail. Lastly, he submits that hearing of the appeal
is likely to take sometime, therefore, the application may be
allowed.
On the other hand learned counsel for the State
opposes the application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the evidence lead by the prosecution, and the fact that
the appellants were on bail during trial and the appeal is
likely to take sometime for its final disposal, I am inclined to
allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to to the appellants.
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence awarded to
appellants by the learned trial Court is hereby suspended
and they are directed to be released on bail on each of them
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- along
with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court for their appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 15.04.2025 and thereafter, shall
continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as
are given to them by the said Court, interval being not less
than 6 months, till final disposal of this appeal.
List this appeal for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
