Chattisgarh High Court
Tikeshwar @ Tikesh Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 November, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2019
1. Tikeshwar @ Tikesh Yadav, S/o Shri Ram Anuj Yadav, Aged About 26 Years
Occupation Labourer R/o Village Khorpa, Thana Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
2. Bhagwat Yadav S/o Shri Ram Anuj Yadav Aged About 28 Years Occupation Labourer
R/o Village Khorpa, Thana Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3. Rupesh Yadav S/o Shri Ram Anuj Yadav Aged About 25 Years Occupation Private
Service, R/o Village Khorpa Thana Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh.
4. Parmendra Yadav, S/o Shri Ram Anuj Yadav, Aged About 24 Years, Occupation
Labourer R/o Village Khorpa, Thana Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Patan, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
25/11/2021 Mr. Ashok Verma, Senior Counsel with Gajendra Sahu,
Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
Heard I.A. No. 03/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail of appellant No.4.
1. By the impugned judgment dated 02/03/2019
passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District -
Durg, (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.25/2018, appellant No.4
stands convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned
below :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. Imprisonment for life and fine
of Rs.1,000/-
U/s 201/34 of the I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year and fine of
Rs.500/- with default
stipulations.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant
No.4/Parmendra Yadav would submit that appellant has been
wrongly convicted by the trial Court without their being
sufficient and clinching evidence against him. He would
further submit that conviction of the appellant is only based
on the statement of sole eye-witness i.e. Premchand (PW-4).
According to this witness, the allegation of assault on the
deceased is by appellant No.1 namely Tikeshwar @ Tilesh
Yadav only and it is not a case where the present appellant
had also come armed with any weapon and assaulted the
deceased. He would also submit that identically situated co-
accused i.e. appellant No.2 Bhagwat Yadav and appellant
No. 3 Rupesh Yadav have been released on bail by this
Court vide order dated 26.03.2021 and 06.09.2021
respectively, therefore, on the ground of parity, the appellant
No.4/Parmendra Yadav may also be granted bail.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would
oppose and submits that the presence of the appellant and
his involvement the catching hold of the deceased has been
made basis for his conviction with the aid of Section 34 of the
I.P.C.
4. Having considered submission of learned
counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration
that the allegation of assault is on co-accused Tikeshwar and
it is not the evidence of the prosecution that present
appellant was also armed or assaulted the deceased, and
also on the ground that co-accused persons i.e. appellant
No.2/Bhagwat Yadav and appellant No.3/ Rupesh Yadav
have already been granted bail by this Court, we are inclined
to allow the application filed by appellant No.4 i.e. Parmendra
Yadav and suspend the jail sentence and grant bail.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No.3/2021 is allowed. It is
directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the
appellant No.4/Parmendra Yadav shall remain suspended
during the pendency of the appeal and he shall be released
on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one
local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court, for his appearance before the
concerned trial Court on 20.01.2022 and all such further
dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not
less than 6 months, till final disposal of this appeal.
6. Subsequently, I.A. No.4/2021, application for
urgent hearing is disposed of.
7. Post the appeal for final hearing.
8. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Prakash
