Shekh Golu @ Sahil vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5001 Chatt

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                           ORDER SHEET
                                        CRA No. 771 of 2021
 Shekh Golu @ Sahil S/o Shekh Shahbuddin Aged About 21 Years R/o Circus Ground,
  Station Ward Bhatapara City, District- Baloda- Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                ---- Appellant
                                                  Versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bhatapara City,
  District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.                    ---- Respondent

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

04.08.2022 Shri Ajay Kumar Chandra, counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Kapil Maini, Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent.

Heard on I.A No.01/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Session Trial No.H-30/2018, the Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 3 months (Fine amount has been deposited before the court below).

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is the father of the deceased and he slapped his daughter in anger with no intention to kill her and he has been falsely implicated in the matter and not involved in the crime in question. He submits further that the Appellant is in jail since 01.09.2018, and therefore, he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned state counsel opposes the bail application on the submission that taking into consideration particularly the statements of Chandani Dhruv (PW-1) and Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-08) and further taking into consideration the P.M. Report (Ex.P-09), the present appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties as also considering the material available on record, particularly the statements of Chandani Dhruv (PW-1) and Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-08) and further taking into consideration the P.M. Report (Ex.P-09), we do not find it to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly I.A. No.01/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is rejected.

                      Sd/-                                             Sd/-

               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                                (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                   JUDGE                                                JUDGE




vivek