SANJAY @ SANJEEV @ BABA  Vs STATE -Judgment by Delhi High Court

* 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
O R D E R

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.
CRL.A. 652/2023
Appeal be listed on 15.04.2024.

(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 15, 2024/v

CRL.A. 652/2023 Page 3 of 3