Chattisgarh High Court
Bahadur Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 897 of 2017
• Bahadur Singh, S/o Mangtu Ram Rathiya, Aged about 28 years, R/o Balpenda,
Police Station- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, through- Station House Officer, Police Station-
Dharamjaigarh , District Raigarh (C.G.).
---- Respondent
DB
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
08.12.2021 Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
It is a repeat bail application of the appellant and his first
bail application (I.A. No. 01/2017) was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 11.12.2017 with liberty to file afresh after two
years.
By the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed in
Sessions Case No. 152/2016 by First Additional Sessions Judge,
Raigarh (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as mentioned
below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 302 of IPC Life imprisonment In default of
and fine amount of payment of fine
Rs. 1,000/-. amount additional
SI for 03 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in the
judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on
record. He further submits that there is no any direct evidence
available against the appellant, there is no eye witness in this
case and the case of prosecution is only based on the
circumstantial evidence i.e. memorandum statement of the
appellant. He further submits that some cloths of the appellant
have been seized and according to the FSL Report (Ex.P/26)
blood staines were found on those seized cloths, but the trial
Court has committed an error in identifying the blood because it
was not the human blood and apart from this evidence there is no
evidence available on record against the appellant, therefore, his
conviction is not sustainable and he may be enlarged on bail at
this stage. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since
21.08.2016 and appeal is likely to take some more time to be
finalized. Hence, it is prayed that his application may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail application.
Heard both the parties.
Minutely perused the record of the trial Court and the
statements of the witnesses and other materials available on
record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
particulary considering the fact that there is no report available
which shows that the blood found on the cloths was human
blood, further considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since
21.08.2016. Without further commenting on other merits of the
case, we are of this opinion that it will be proper to release the
appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
On execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon
the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and he shall be released on bail on executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 16.02.2022. He 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 him by the said Court, till the
disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge Judge
Vasant
