SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(P&H) 716

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Balbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. I have heard counsel for the parties on the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal, filed by applicant-appellant. This is a third application for suspension of sentenced filed by the appellant. Earlier his applications were declined on 21.9.2004 and 20.11.2004.

2. The applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 IPC, out of which he has undergone one year, one month and twenty five days.

3. The period of sentence undergone by the applicant has not been disputed by the counsel for the State.

4. This is 2004 appeal and its hearing is likely to take some time. In these circumstances, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai and others v. State of Gujarat, 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 770 (SC) : 1999(4) SCC 421 and Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P., 2002 SCC(Crl.) 1017, the sentence imposed upon the applicant-appellant is suspended during the pendency of appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Yamunanagr.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top