Chattisgarh High Court
Taneshwar Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2021
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1223 of 2021
1. Taneshwar Ram Sahu S/o Ramsukh Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Sitabardi, Ward No. 4, Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
2. Roshan Rajak S/o Krishna Rajak, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Sitabardi, Ward
No. 2, Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
3. Dipesh Kumar Gandharva S/o Late Churaman Gandharva, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Dongargaon Road, Police Station Chhuriya, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Chhuriya, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
---- Respondent
22/10/2021 Mr. S.S. Baghel, Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, P.L. for the State/respondent.
Heard.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Call for record of the Court below.
Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
By the impugned judgment dated 08/10/2021 passed by Special
Judge (Atrocities Act) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG.) in
Special Case No. 36/2017, the appellants stand convicted and sentenced
as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 294 of Indian Fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of
Penal Code (in short IPC). payment of fine additional S.I. for 5
days to each of the appellants.
Under Section 323 of IPC (1 Fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of
count) (with respect of payment of fine additional S.I. for 10
injured Ravi Nandeshwar) days to each of the appellants.
Under Section 186 of IPC. Fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of
payment of fine additional S.I. for 5
days to each of the appellants.
Under Section 332 of IPC R.I. for 6 months to each of the
(with respect to complainant appellants.
Kamlesh Kumar Dhruv)
Under Section 353 of IPC R.I. for 6 months to each of the
appellants.
Both the sentences to run
concurrently and in case of default of
payment of fine the sentences would
run one after the other.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment has
been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence available on
record. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statements
of the prosecution witnesses. The medical evidences does not support
the case of the prosecution. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take
some time, therefore, the appellants be released on bail.
On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that
maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellants is 6 moths R.I., the
disposal of the appeal is likely to take sometime, without expressing
anything on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that present is a fit
case to suspend the jail sentence imposed upon the appellants and to
release them on bail.
Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 01/2021) is allowed.
It is directed that the execution of substantive jail sentence
imposed upon the appellants shall remain suspended during the
pendency of this appeal and they shall be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties
of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court 16th December, 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 disposal of
this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
-Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Chandrakant
