Chattisgarh High Court
Karan @ Raja @ Makhan Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 610 of 2020
1. Karan @ Raja @ Makhan Ram S/o Laxman Ram Aged About 21 Years R/o
Darudih, Police Station Lesli Ganj District Palamu (Jharkhand).
2. Pradeep Dom S/o Bhola Dom Aged About 30 Years R/o Sonpurva Police
Station Gadhwa District Gadhwa (Jharkhand).
3. Kundan @ Mukur @ Guddu Gupta S/o Late Shankar Gupta, Aged About 24
Years R/o Village - Arurwakhurd, Hariharganj District - Palamu (Jharkhand).
Present Address - Krishna Nagar, House of Shekhar Sharma, Police Station-
Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.).
---- Appellants
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur
(C.G.).
---- Respondent
17.09.2021 Mr. Ishan Verma, counsel for the Appellants.
Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, an application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
By the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed in
Sessions Case No. 88/2017 by the 6 th Additional Sessions Judge,
Raipur (C.G.) all appellants stands convicted as mentioned
below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 307/34 of IPC RI for 10 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
RI for 06 months.
u/S 392 read with RI for 07 years and In default of
Section 397 of IPC fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
RI for 06 months.
u/S 25(1 क) of the RI for 07 years and In default of
Arms Act fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
RI for 06 months.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in the
judgment without there being any sufficient and clinching
evidence available on record. He submits that the
complainant/victim of the case not supported the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile. Test identification parade of the
appellants is also suspicious and conviction of the appellants is
only based on the seizure of the arms but one of the seizure
witness has not been examined by the prosecution and other
seizure witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, the conviction of
the appellants is not sustainable. It is further submitted by
counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in jail since
14.11.2016 and appeal is likely to take some more time to be
finalized. Hence, it is prayed that their application may be
allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail application and supported the impugned
judgment.
Heard both the parties.
Perused the record of the trial Court and material available
on record. After going through the statements of the witnesses
and considering the evidence and considering the fact that the
appellants are in jail since 14.11.2016. Without further
commenting on other merits of the case, I am of this opinion that
it will be proper to release the appellants on bail during the
pendency of this appeal.
On execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon
the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of
this appeal and they shall be released on bail on each of them
executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one
solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court
for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on
20.12.2021. 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 the disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Vasant
