Julfekar Beg vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 240 Chatt

                                           1

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   Order Sheet

                                CRA No. 2011 of 2019

• Julfekar Beg S/o Late Rehmat Beg Aged About 41 Years R/o Golbazar
  Khairagarh, Police Station And Tehsil Khairagarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
  Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khairagarh, District :
  Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---Respondent

10/06/2021 Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, counsel for the appellant/s.

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Dy. A.G. for the State/respondent.

Heard on application (I.A. No. 01/2019) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.09/2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the prosecution main witnesses Juber Ahmad Khan (PW-1), Dileep Futani (PW-4) and Sanjay Walecha (PW-7) have not supported the prosecution case as the eyewitness of the case because even

according to their evidence, they have not seen as to who assaulted the deceased and involvement of the appellant is based only on the evidence that he was seen having rod in his hand and he was seen going towards his house. His next submission is that the rod has not found to be stained with human blood. There is no evidence to show that at the time of incident there was any quarrel or fight going on between the appellant and the deceased nor there is any evidence of any motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes and submits that though the witnesses have not stated regarding they having witnessed accused assault, the presence of the appellant with a rod nearby the place where the deceased was found in his shop bleeding and the rod containing blood connect the appellant with the commission of offence.

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated regarding appellant assaulting the deceased and the involvement of the appellant is based on the statement that in front of the shop of the deceased, the appellant was seen with rod and further taking into consideration that forensic report does not prove that the rod was stained with human blood, we are inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, application (I.A. No. 01/2019) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along

with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on 26.07.2021 and on all such further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, during the pendency of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                         Sd/-                                     Sd/-
         (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                   (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                    Judge                                      Judge




Ravi