Chattisgarh High Court
Saroj Bag vs State Of Chhattigarh on 16 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 751 of 2019
Mukesh Kumar Mahna @ Mahendra S/o Ghanshyam, aged about 36 years R/o
34/10-F, Sector-7, Bhilai, Tahsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station- Bhilai
Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
WITH
CRA No. 713 of 2019
Saroj Bag W/o Bhujau Bag Aged About 52 Years R/o 34/10-F, Sector-7, Bhilai,
Tahsil And District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattigarh through S.H.O. P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
16.07.2021 Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant in CRA
No.713/2019.
Ms. Sofia Khan, Counsel for the Appellant in CRA No.751/2019.
Mr. Akhtar Hussain, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2019 & I.A. No.02/2019 applications for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellants.
By the impugned judgment date 30.06.2018 passed in S.T.
No.56/2017 by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Durg
(C.G.) , the Appellants stands convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 307/34 of IPC RI for 07 years and fine In default of payment of
amount of Rs.100/-. fine amount additional
RI for 01 month.
U/s 120- B of IPC RI for 07 years and fine In default of payment of
amount of Rs.100/-. fine amount additional
RI for 01 month.
U/s 363 of IPC RI for 07 years and fine In default of payment of
amount of Rs.100/-. fine amount additional
RI for 01 month.
Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the
Appellants have been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court in the
judgment without there being any clinching evidence available on record.
Referring to the statement of PW-13 and PW-14 namely Bhanupratap
Vishwakarma & Arib Khan, it has been argued by both the counsel that in
the statement of PW-14 i.e. Victim he had categorically admitted that at
the time of incident present Appellants were not present and only juvenile
who is the co-accused namely Tinku was present there and Tinku
assaulted him, therefore, looking to the aforesaid conviction of the
Appellants is not sustainable. He further submits that Appellants have
completed 05 years out of 07 years jail sentence and presently the
Appellants are in jail since 29.08.2016 and appeal is likely to take some
more time. Hence, it is prayed that his application may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
bail application and submissions made in this respect.
Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.
After perusing the impugned judgment, the statements of PW-13 &
PW-14 namely Bhanupratap Vishwakarma & Arib Khan, on perusal of
their statement and admission made by PW-14 and considering this fact
that the Appellants are in jail since 29.08.2016 and appeal is likely to take
some more time, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the
Appellants on bail.
Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the
appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal
and they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry
of this Court on 10.12.2021. 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.
List these cases for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Saurabh
