Ramesh Prajapati vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 333 Chatt

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                            CRA No. 459 of 2019

              1. Ramesh Prajapati S/o Chandrika Prasad Prajapati, aged about 30 years R/o
                 Sardar Patel Colony, Ward No. 1, Bodri, Randha Para, PS Chakrabhata, District
                 Bilaspur (C.G.).

              2. Sheetal Kesharwani S/o Devi Prasad Kesharwani, aged about 35 years R/o
                 Nirmalkar Avas Para, Ward No. 16, Silgitti (Parsada), PS- Silgitti, District Bilaspur
                 (C.G.)

                                                                                     ---- Appellants

                                                    Versus

               State of Chhattisgarh Through the PS- Kondagaon, District Kongagaon (C.G.)

                                                                                    ---- Respondent

15/06/2021 Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sameer Uraon, Govt. Advocate for the State.

Heard on IA No.1 of 2021, repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

Previous application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat the same after completion of half the sentence imposed upon the appellants.

By the impugned judgment dated 23/02/2019 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.- 2/2016, the Appellants stand convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 20 (B) (ii-c) : R.I. for 10 years & fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

and in default of payment of fine further 1 year additional rigorous imprisonment.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in jail since 07/4/2016 and the maximum sentence imposed upon them is 10 years, therefore, they have undergone more than ½ of the sentenced imposed upon them. It is further submitted that the conviction of the appellants is bad in law. The seizure witness, Mangal Singh Sahu (PW2) is hostile witness. Whereas another search and seizure witness Satish Buxy (PW5) is partially hostile, therefore, he is not reliable witness. Hence, the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable.

On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the appellants are not entitle to get bail.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

Considered on the submissions made by the counsels and perused the record of the trial Court. After due consideration, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the appellants on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

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 surety each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/07/2021. 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.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

rahul