Chattisgarh High Court
Hetram Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 September, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CR.A. No. 1453 of 2016
1. Hetram Nayak S/o Anand Kand Nayak, Aged About 45,
2. Smt. Janki Nayak, W/o Hetram Nayak, Aged About 42 Years,
3. Chandrahas Sidar, S/o Sanat Kumar Sidar, Aged About 25 Years,
4. Ashok Yadav, S/o Shivnarayan, Aged About 27 Years,
5. Ramesh Sarthi S/o Late Baratram Sarthi Aged About 30 Years,
Appellant No.1 to 5 are R/o Village - Bar, Police Station Sariya, District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
03.09.2021 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Counsel for the Appellant.
Ms. Shivali Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Counsel for the Objector.
Heard on I.A. No.1/2017 repeat application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1/Hetram Nayak.
The earlier bail application was dismissed on merits by order
dated 03.05.2017.
Appellant has been convicted by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 17.11.2016, passed in S.T. No.29/2015 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
in the following manner with a direction to run all the sentences
concurrently:-
U/s. 302/149 of the : Life Imprisonment and fine of
Indian Penal Code. Rs.1000/- in default of fine amount
one year R.I.
U/s. 201/149 of the : R.I. for three years and fine of
Indian Penal Code Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine amount of four months.
U/s. 120-B of the Indian : Life Imprisonment and fine of
Penal Code Rs.1000/- in default of payment of
fine amount one year R.I.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.1 would submit
that the appellant No.1 is in jail since about six years and the appeal
has not come out for final hearing so far. The other appellants in this
case has already benefited by suspension of sentence and grant of
bail vide order dated 03.05.2017 and the present appellant is also
similarly placed. It is next submitted that the previous order a dispute
has held that in the evidence Ex-P/50 against this applicant which was
made basis for rejecting his application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail. The Ex-P/50 is not such an evidence which cannot
be made basis for conviction against this applicant, because it is a
report of appelant DNA finger printing diagnostics with respect of some
seized articles which have no connection with this appellant, therefore,
the appellant/No.1 is entitled for grant of regular bail.
Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that the earlier
application on this applicant No.1, the suspension application was
rejected on merits and that cannot be reviewed and therefore his
application be rejected.
Counsel for the Objector supported the arguments raised by the
counsel for the State and he also opposed the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties
and particularly taking into consideration that the previous order dated
03.05.2017 the application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail of this appellant No.1 has been dismissed on merits and the same
order cannot be reviewed by this Court again, therefore, we are of this
opinion that the present application is not fit to be allowed and
therefore it is rejected.
List this case for final hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) ( Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Yasmin
