Naresh Singh @ Mona Singh Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3777 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                      Order Sheet
                                  CRA No. 578 of 2021
  • Naresh Singh @ Mona Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Chunna Singh Chouhan Aged
    About 28 Years R/o Rda Colony, House No. 213, P.S. - D.D. Nagar, Distt. Raipur
    (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                       ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S.- Hirri, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh),
    District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                     ---- Respondent

with

CRA No. 375 of 2021 • Sandeep @ Sanju Goswami S/o Late Shriram Goswami, Aged About 28 Years R/o. Housing Board Colony, Quarter No. Mig-91, Police Station Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

17-12-2021 Mr. Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta,

counsel for the appellant/s in CRA No. 375 of 2021.

Mr. Devershi Thakur, counsel for the appellant/s in CRA No. 578 of

2021.

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. GA for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021 - application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail filed both the appellants.

The appellants have been convicted by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, CG in Sessions Trial No. 67/2018.

Learned senior counsel submits on behalf of appellant Sandeep

@ Sanju Goswami that the conviction against the appellant under

Sections 364-A of the IPC is totally misconceived as the there is no such

case present about kidnapping to ransom. It is submitted that the

evidence of test identification parade of this appellant is totally

unreliable, the appellant was arrested on 08.05.2018, the arrest memo

Ex. P-21 shows Mohd. Anis (PW-3) as one of the witness who is the

person who identified this appellant in the TIP conducted on 09.05.2018.

Mohd. Anis (PW-3) has clearly made admissions in cross-examination

that there was presence of police men at the time when TIP was

conducted. Further the victim of the case Mohd. Sabir Shekhani (PW-2)

has not identified the appellant. Although there is dock identification

present but that is suggestive on the basis, that this witness had

opportunity to see the appellant subsequent to his arrest. It is further

submitted that it may be simple case of robbery, however, the evidence

of prosecution is not beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant

has a fit case for arguing this appeal, he may be granted bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 578 of 2021 submit

that the appellant was arrested in this case on 18.02.2018 and again

Mohd. Anis (PW-3) was the witness of this arrest, who was also the

witness of memorandum statement which was recorded on 18.03.2018.

Later on, the test identification parade was conducted on 19.03.2018 in

which there was presence of police men which has been clearly

admitted that by Mohd. Sabir Shekhani (PW-2) in cross-examination that the SHO of the police station and one police men was present at the

time of the test identification parade, therefore, the evidence of

identification is totally unreliable and the dock identification made by the

witnesses is suggestive. Further it is submitted that there is no case

present of kidnapping for ransom. Hence, this appellant may also be

granted bail during the pendency of the appeal against him.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions and

submits that the evidence of the test identification parade is reliable,

similarly there is memorandum statement recorded of the appellants in

which is clear admission of their guilt. The prosecution case is proved

beyond reasonable doubt therefore, there is no case present for grant of

bail to both the appellants.

Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,

perused the evidence and record of the trial Court and we are of the

considered opinion that both the appellants should be granted bail

during the pendency of the appeal. Hence both the applications are

allowed.

Accordingly, IA No. 01/2021, application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail is allowed.

It is directed that the jail sentence imposed upon the appellants

shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they

shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum

of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the

trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14th

of February, 2022. 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 disposal of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                               Sd/-                                     Sd/-

                  (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)             (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                              Judge                                   Judge




Pawan Prajapati