1 2025:CGHC:48668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2566 of 2025 1 - Yogesh Sahu S/o Shri Parmeshwar Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Singibahar, P.S. Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.). --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2471 of 2025 1 - Chandrasen Tamrakar S/o Shri Manoj Tamrakar, Aged About 25 Years R/o Bus Stand Ward No. 4, Tapkara, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Sukesh Tamrakar S/o Manoj Tamrakar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bus Stand Ward No. 4, Tapkara, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Manoj Tamrakar S/o Late Shri Awadh Bihari Tamrakar, Aged About 58 Years R/o Bus Stand Ward No. 4, Tapkara, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, and Mr. Manoj Chauhan Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.10.06 18:18:15 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (in short “BNSS”) against the order dated 25-07-2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2025 and 24/2025, whereby the application filed by the respective appellants/accused persons under Section 389 of the CRPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail have been rejected. 2. The subject matter, in brief, is that the present petitioners are the accused persons in the case who have been prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 1476/2024, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri, for the charge of Section 420/34 of the IPC. It is alleged that the accused persons have cheated various complainants and obtained money from them on the pretext of providing a job to them, and their bank accounts were misused for illegal transactions of huge money. After the conclusion of the trial of the case, by the judgment dated 11-07-2025, the accused persons have been convicted for the offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC and sentenced for R.I. for 03 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month. 3. The accused Yogesh Sahu has filed Criminal Appeal No. 23/2025, before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The other three accused persons have filed their Criminal Appeal No. 24/2025, before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, against the said judgment of conviction and sentence. In both these appeals, the accused persons have filed their application under Section 389 of the CRPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to them during the 3 appeal. The accused persons have been heard on their applications and on 25-07-2025, and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, possibility of again commission of the offence by the accused persons, stack of the amount involved in the present case and also the manner in which the offence is committed, the learned appellate court rejected the applications of the appellants. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Manoj Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners Chandrasen Tamrakar, Suresh Tamrakar and Manoj Tamrakar (CRMP No. 2471/2025), would submit that the maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner/accused persons is 03 years, and they have been in jail since 24-07-2024, i.e. more than a year. There is every possibility of delay in the final adjudication of the criminal appeal filed before the learned appellate court. The alleged offence is not of a serious nature, and there are no criminal antecedents. He would further submit that the complainant Vikas Lakda has filed an application for compounding of the offence, and the offence of Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable with the leave of the Court. Therefore, the petitioner/accused persons should be released on bail after suspension of their sentence awarded by the learned trial court. 5. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Yogesh Sahu (CRMP No. 2566/2025) would submit that the learned appellate Court should have exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner/accused and should have suspended his sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. The discretion has not been exercised judicially. There are various components that are missing in the case to prove the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant himself wants to compound the offence, and in view thereof, the petitioner should be released on bail. He would also submit that out of the 03 years of jail sentence, the petitioner has already undergone more than one year of the 4 sentence. In view of the possibility of a delay in the final decision of the appeal, the petitioner/accused may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the submissions of the respective petitioners and would submit that in view of the manner in which the offence is committed, the amount involved in the offence and the gravity of the offence, and also the further possibility of repeating the offence by the accused persons, rejected their application for suspension of sentence and grant bail during the appeal. The jurisdiction exercised by the appellate court is correctly exercised, and there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders. He would further submit that the learned appellate court may be directed to decide the appeals of the respective appellants within the stipulated time. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 8. The challenge in the present petition is the order dated 25-07-2025 passed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeals No. 23/2025 and 24/2025, filed by the respective appellants, before the learned appellate court, by which their application of Section 389 of CRPC have been rejected. By rejecting the application of Section 389 CRPC, the learned appellate Court denied the suspension of sentence and released them on bail. 9. Section 389 of the CRPC provides for the suspension of execution of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. Merely because the convicted person files an appeal to challenge his conviction, the Court should not suspend the sentence, and the Court has a duty to look at all aspects of the case. The relevant factor for the exercise of powers of suspending the sentence is the degree of probability that the appeal stands of being finally allowed. The degree of probability has to be determined on the basis of a prima facie satisfaction. Although the provisions of Section 389 of the CRPC are discretionary and not mandatory, 5 however, the other factors are also relevant, such as ancillary matters as the nature of the offence and its gravity. 10. Be that as it may, without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the criminal appeal filed by the appellants before the learned appellate court, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the learned appellate court is directed to decide the appeal on its own merits within a stipulated time, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 11. Accordingly, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of with the direction to the learned Appellate Court to decide both the appeals (Cr.A. No. 23/2025 and Cr.A. No. 24/2025) filed by the respective appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11-07-2025, in Criminal Case No. 1476/2024, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, and after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. 12. The registry is directed to immediately return the records of the learned trial court, along with a copy of this order. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok