Surendra Goyal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 664 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order Sheet

                             CRA No. 1972 of 2019

   Surendra Goyal S/o Itwari Goyal Aged About 30 Years Occupation Labour, R/o
   Village Jhal, Police Station - Navagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

   State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Navagarh, District : Bemetara,
   Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Respondent

28.06.2021 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, 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 06.12.2019 passed in S.T.

No.32/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District:

Bemetara (C.G.) the Appellant stands convicted as mentioned

below:

                 Conviction             Sentence              In Default

             U/s 326-A of IPC     RI for 10 years and In default of payment of
                                  fine   amount     of fine amount additional
                                  Rs.25,000/-.         RI for 01 year.

             U/s 326-B of IPC     RI for 05 years and In default of payment of
                                  fine   amount     of fine amount additional
                                  Rs.10,000/-.         imprisonment for 06
                                                       months.

Both the sentences will run concurrently

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 Appellant has remained in jail for more than three

years and there is no any conclusive evidence available on record

on the basis of which, it can be said that victim has completely lost

his vision of both the eyes. 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 and perused the

statements of PW-01 & PW-16 namely Sanjay Sonwani & Dr.

Devendra Nayak. After perusal of their statements, I am of this

opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the Appellant

during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2019 is rejected.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Saurabh