FIROZ RIZVI Vs. STATE OF CG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on I. A. No. 1177/2006 for urgent hearing. Matter is taken up on Board. I. A. No. 1178/2006 for exemption from filing typed copy of the certified copy is dismissed as not pressed. Heard on admission. Admit Also heard on M.Cr.P.No. 1051/2006 for suspesion of sentence and grant of bail. The appellant has been convicted under Section 412 I.P.C. by Shri M.S. Kerketta, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara in Sessions Case No. 235/2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one year. Shri J.R. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the evidence led by the prosecution fails to establish the guilt under Section 412 of the I.P.C. against the appellant since no seizure memo was prepared to show that amount of Rs. 13,000/- was seized from the appellant. It was also contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show the complicity of the appellant in the alleged dacoity committed by the co-accused. It was also submitted that co- accused Mammu alias Mammo alias Noortaki, Sirajuddin alias Mistri and Abdul Rahman alias Abdulla have beeb acquitted of the charges under Section 395 & 397 of the I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(b)(A) read with Section 3 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was also contended that the appellant is in jail since 24.1.2004 and has thus undergone incarceration for a period over two years and three months. Lastly, it was contended that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the amount of Rs. 13,000/- alleged to have been seized from the appellant . was the subject matter of the commission of dacoity. On these premises, it was prayed that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. On the other hand, Shri Ravindra Agrawal, P.L. has opposed the application while contending that the appellant is a resident of Meerut (U.P.) and is likely to abscond if bail is granted. Having considered that rival submissions, I have perused the impugned judgment. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above and the fact that the appellant has already suffered incarceration for a period over two years and three months, the appellant in my considered opinion, is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, M.Cr.P.No. 1051/2006 is allowed. It is ordered that if the appellant furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties in like sum to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 7th July 2006 and on all such subsequent dates as may be given, the execution of substantive sentence imposed on the appellant-Firoz Rizvi shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal and he shall be released on bail. It is directed that the learned trial Judge shall ensure that the photographs of the surety are affixed on the bail bonds and the surety bonds are subjected to thorough verification in all details. Let this matter be now listed for final hearing. Bail Granted.