Present vs For The
2022 Latest Caselaw 747 Tri

                                Page 1 of 2


                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA

                            IA NO. 01 OF 2022
                       IN CRL. REV P NO.44 OF 2022

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

Present:
For the Applicant(s)             : Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)            : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.

Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

05.08.2022

Order

This is an application filed under Section 389 of

Cr.P.C. for suspension of the conviction and sentence

rendered against the applicant and releasing him on bail in

any condition during the pendency of the Crl. Rev. Petition

preferred by the applicant before this Court under Section

397(1) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., against the

judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in Case No. Crl. Appeal

07/2022, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the

applicant under Section 279/338 of IPC and Section 187 of

M.V. Act and sentenced the applicant to suffer S.I. for one

month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of IPC with default stipulation

and also sentenced him to suffer S.I. for three months and

to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 338 of IPC, with default stipulation. He is further

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under

Section 187 of M.V. Act, and in default, to suffer S.I for five

days.

Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the

applicant as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. along with

Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-

respondent.

Since the matter is admitted for final hearing, this

Court is inclined to suspend the sentence passed by the

Court below, till the disposal of the connected petition.

Accordingly, the applicant is allowed to go on bail on

furnishing a bail bond as awarded by the Court below

supported by one surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the concerned authority.

In terms of the above, the present interlocutory

application stands allowed and thus disposed of.

JUDGE

suhanjit