Dhanprasad @ Dhanna Malik vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1545 Chatt

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet

                              CR.A. No. 1659 of 2018

1.    Dhanprasad @ Dhanna Malik, S/o. Late Shankarlal Malik, aged about 49
      years, R/o. Farista, Complex Parisar Durg P/A Katni I W Barakchap
      Railway Colony District Katni M.P. civil and revenue District Durg
      Chhattisgarh.

2.    Raj Malik @ Raja @ Raju @ Veer Malik, S/o. Shri Dhanna @ Dhanprasad
      Malik, Cast- Swiper, aged about 22 years, R/o Pachri Para Farista,
      Complex Parisar Footpath, P. S. Durg, Present Address Bhatta Mohalla,
      P. S. City Kotwali, District Katni M. P.

                                                                    --- Appellants

                                      Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Durg, District -Durg,
Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---Respondent

03/08/2021 Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The first bail application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.12.2018 with liberty to revive the same after completion of one year.

Appellants have been convicted by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2018, passed in Criminal Case No.9038/2017, by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in the following manner :-

U/s. 307 the Indian : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.50/- Penal Code. and in default of payment of fine, further under one month of S.I. to each of the appellants.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been erroneously convicted by the trial Court. The appellants have undergone about half of the sentence in jail. The injured witness (P.W.-5) has not stated anything about the intention of the appellants and the examining doctor (P.W.-7) also has not clearly made statement that injury caused to the victim was fatal in nature. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is likelihood of delay in final hearing of the appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of imprisonment against he appellants be suspended and they may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, there is no case present for grant of bail to the appellants.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Considered on the submissions. After perusing the deposition of the injured witness (P.W.-5) and the examining doctor (P.W.-7), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence and release the appellants on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is allowed.

Execution of substantive jail sentence imposed on appellants shall remain suspended and they are directed to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum Rs.25,000/- with one surety each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5th October, 2021. They shall thereafter appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to them by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

balram