Delhi High Court
Sanjay @ Sanjeev @ Baba vs State on 15 January, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 11.01.2024
Judgment delivered on: 15.01.2024
+ CRL.A. 652/2023
SANJAY @ SANJEEV @ BABA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Rachit Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
SI Rahul Ravi, PS: Tilak Marg.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1147/2023
1. An application has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') for
suspension of sentence in FIR No. 189/2004 under Sections 307/353/186
IPC & 25/27 Arms Act registered at PS: Tilak Marg during the pendency of
the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
convicted vide judgment dated 13.03.2023 and further sentenced vide order
dated 21.04.2023 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of
Seven years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- for offence punishable under Section
307 IPC; SI for a period of three months under Section 186 IPC; RI for a
period of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 25 Arms Act; RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-
for offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo SI for 6 months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C
was also given to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no injury was sustained
by any person in the alleged incident and the case has been fabricated by the
police. It is also pointed out that no public witness was joined in investigation
to corroborate the alleged incident. The appellant is stated to have undergone
more than half of the sentence.
4. Learned APP for the State opposes the application and submits that
the appellant fired at police party and is also involved in other criminal
cases.
5. As per nominal roll, the un-expired portion of the sentence, as
on 10.07.2023, is reflected as 03 years 06 months 10 days.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (CRL.) No.529/2021 titled as
"Sonadhar vs. The State of Chhattisgarh", observed as under :
" b) The Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee would
take up cases for those convicts who have undergone more
than half the sentence in case of fixed term sentences and
examine the flexibility of filing a bail application before the
High Court."
6. The appellant has undergone more than half of the sentence and
disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time. Considering the totality of
the facts and circumstances, the sentence of the appellant is suspended and
is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to following conditions:
(i) The appellant shall be released on bail, subject to deposit
of fine amount; and
(ii) The appellant shall provide his mobile number to the
Investigating Officer (IO)/SHO concerned at the time of
release.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court and
Superintendent Jail for information and compliance.
Appeal be listed on 15.04.2024.
(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 15, 2024/v
