Chattisgarh High Court
Deepak Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 473 of 2022
Deepak Yadav S/o Shriram Yadav, aged about 24 years, R/o Village: Kharod,
Kankalipara Chowk, Now Jokha Talab, Ringni Road Kharod, P.S:
Shivrinarayan, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station: Shivarinarayan, District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
04.08.2022 Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Mr. Asseem Bhagwat Gopal,
Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. R. M. Solapurkar, G.A. for the State.
Heard I.A. No.1 of 2022, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment date 13.12.2021 passed in
Sessions Case No. 32/2019 by the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District: Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) the
appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 307 of IPC RI for 5 years with a In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.10,000/-. amount additional
SI for 6 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has wrongly been convicted by the Trial Court in the
judgment without there being any sufficient and clinching
evidence available on record. He submits that from the
evidence brought by the prosecution before the Trial Court the
offence under Section 307 is not made out against the present
appellant. In order to support his contentions, counsel
appearing for the appellant have made following submission:
A. That, there are three injuries found out by the
prosecution and two of them are simple in nature and the
grievous injury is said to have been committed on the left-
hand arm of the injured, which cannot be said to be on the
vital part.
Counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that
in the statement of injured (PW-4), he had categorically stated
that he was admitted in the hospital and after one day he was
discharged from the hospital, which goes to show that injuries
were not grievous or dangerous to life of the injured. He
further submits that even in prosecution story itself there was
quarrel between two friends on account of certain petty issues
due to which the incident had occurred. There was no any
premeditation or intention to commit the crime under Section
307 of IPC. He further submits that during trial the appellant
was on bail and he had not misused the liberty granted to him
and during the pendency of trial, he has undergone about 9
months in jail.
Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is in
jail since 13.12.2021 and trial is likely to take some more time to
be finalyzed. Hence, it is prayed that appellant be granted bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail application and submissions made in this
respect.
I have heard both the parties.
Perused the impugned judgment as well as evidence
adduced by the prosecution.
On due consideration, particularly considering the
statement of Dr. Anvinta Dhruv (PW-1), injuries sustained by the
victim Sanju Kumar Yadav (PW-4), the manner in which the
offence is committed and the detention period of the
appellant. I am of the view that it is a fit case where the
appellant should be granted bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2022 is allowed.
Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and he shall be released on bail on 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 his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 11.10.2022. He 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 him by the said
Court, till the disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
sSaurabh
