Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Chattisgarh High Court

Laxman Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 33 Crr/292/2019 ... on 27 February, 2019

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                         Order Sheet
                                    CRR No. 284 of 2019
          Laxman Singh S/o Mahavir Singh Aged About 68 Years R/o House No. 133
           (C), Shikshak Nagar (Kamladevi Dairy) Police Station Supela, District Durg
           Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            ---- Applicant
                                            Versus
          State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District
           Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Respondent
01

27/02/2019 Mr. Arvind Dubey, Counsel for the Applicant.

Mrs. Smriti Shrivastava, PL for the Respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on IA No. 1/2019 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Applicant.

By the impugned judgment dated 18/02/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 59/2017, arising out of judgment dated 10/04/2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in criminal case no. 1014/2014, the applicant stands convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 18.02.2019 and during trial also he was in jail for about 1 month 5 days, therefore, looking to the short jail sentence awarded to him, he may be released on bail.

On the other hand State counsel opposes the bail application.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the evidence available on record, further considering the detention period of the accused/applicant without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant need not give any appearance until and unless otherwise directed.

Call for the record of the Court below.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham