Charku Nageshiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 434 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                Order Sheet

                          CRA No. 1888 of 2019

 Charku Nageshiya S/o Suriya Nageshiya, aged about 42 years, R/o Village
 Gautampur (Parsapani Dholpakhla Para), Police Station: Chando, District
 Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

                                                                  ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Chando,
 District: Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ---- Respondent

21.06.2021 Mr. Anupam Dubey (Legal Aid), Mr. Pushkar Sinha,

Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G. for the State/Respondent.

Heard I.A. No. 01/2019, an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment date 19.11.2019 passed in

Sessions Trial No.95/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Ramanujganj, District: Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

the Appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

                 Conviction               Sentence          In Default

             U/s 304 Part-II of RI for 10 years and In    default   of
             IPC                fine   amount     of payment of fine
                                Rs.500/-.            amount additional
                                             SI for 02 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 submits that conviction of the Appellant is mainly

based on the statement of PW-01 & PW-02 namely Mahendra

Uraov & Smt. Rajan Uraov. It is submitted by the counsel that

though in their examination chief both the above witnesses have

supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that they

witnessed the incident but in their cross examination they have

admitted the fact that they have not witnessed the incident inspite

of that Trial Court has convicted the Appellant on the basis of said

statement of PW-01 & PW-02. With regard to the other evidence

it is argued by the counsel that though one stick was seized from

the Appellant but, in that stick no blood stain was found therefore,

from the seizure of the said stick also doesn't help the case of

prosecution in any manner. He lastly submits that the Appellant is

in jail since 26.09.2017 and appeal will take some more time to

finalize. Hence, it is prayed that his application 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.

I have gone through the entire record of the Trial Court and

minutely perused the statement of PW-01 & PW-02 namely

Mahendra Uraov & Smt. Rajan Uraov. On perusal of their

statement, without further commenting on other merits of the

case and considering the fact that the Appellant is in jail since

26.09.2017, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release

the Appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

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.25,000/- 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 06.12.2021. 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 due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Saurabh