Santoshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3978 Chatt
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Santoshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 April, 2025

                                      1




          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                            CRA No. 1499 of 2024

1 - Santoshi W/o Vijay Telgu Aged About 35 Years


2 - Yashoda W/o Nandkishore Telgu Aged About 46 Years


3 - Nandkishore S/o Dadu Telgu Aged About 51 Years
  All are R/o Santoshi Nagar, Bheemkhoj, District- Mahasamund, j
   Chhattisgarh.


                                                     ...Appellants)


                                  versus


State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. And
District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
                                                     ... Respondent(s)

CRA No. 1503 of 2024 Digitally signed by SUGUNA 1SUGUNA

- Santoshi W/o Vijay Telgu Aged About 35 Years DUBEY Date:

DUBEY    2025.04.26
         11:20:08
         +0530

2 - Yashoda W/o Nandkishore Telgu Aged About 46 Years 3 - Nandkishore S/o Dadu Telgu Aged About 51 Years 2 All are R/o Santoshi Nagar, Bheemkhoj, P.S. And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s) Order Sheet 25/04/2025 Heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent on the instant applications under Section 430 of BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant No.3 (I.A. No. 2 of 2025 and 1 of 2025 respectively).

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2024, the First Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2019 has convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and fine of 3 Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for five months, RI for seven years and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and RI for ten years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month two months.

Learned counsel for the convict/appellants has argued that for the same incident, two FIR's were registered against the appellants as there were three deceased. One of the FIR which was registered against the appellants was lodged by one Shanti Bai, who was wife of one of the deceased and the present FIR was lodged by one Seema Bai, wife of deceased Ranjit Telgu and it is argued that the connected Criminal Appeal No.1503/2024 was filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence in the FIR which was lodged by Shanti Bai and the applications filed on behalf of appellants No. 1 & 2 namely Santoshi and Yashoda for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024. He further submits that the appellant No.3 is in custody since 4 14.08.2018 and that the appeals are likely to take a couple of years or even more in its final disposal, hence he prays that the appellant No.3 be enlarged on bail.

Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State formally opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the bail applications.

As the applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been filed on behalf of the appellant No.3 in both the appeals and he is stated to be in jail since 14.08.2018 and two of the co-accused who were ladies have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 but there was no application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant No.3 and the same has been filed on 04.03.2025 Considering the fact that the appellant No.3 had absconded and therefore, the trial of the appellant was separated from the other co-accused persons and if he is granted bail, he will again abscond thus, we do not find any good ground for enlarging him on bail. Hence, we reject the applications filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of 5 sentence and grant of bail and the matter is ripe for final hearing.

Let the matters be listed for final hearing on 30th April 2025.

                    Sd/-                      Sd/-

        (Arvind Kumar Verma)            (Ramesh Sinha)
               Judge                    Chief Justice