Chattisgarh High Court
Budu Sodi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No.1671 of 2021
1. Budu Sodi S/o Late Somdu, aged about 22 years, by caste: Madiya, R/o Kalepal,
Ragapara, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
2. Lakhma Podiyami S/o Shri Bandhu Podiyami, aged about 43 years, by caste :
Madiya, R/o Kalepal, Ragapara, Polie Satin Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
3. Boti Madvi S/o Baman Madvi, aged 22 years, by caste : Madiya, R/o Kalepal,
Ragapara, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
4. Hunga Kawasi S/o Late Hidma, aged about 47 years, by caste: Madiya, R/o
Kalepal, Ragapara, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
5. Fagnu Madkami S/o Late Hadma, aged about 48 years, by caste: Madiya, R/o
Kalepal, Ragapara, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
6. Hadma Kawasi S/o Late Somdu, aged about 42 years, by caste: Madiya, R/o
Kalepal, Ragapara, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
7. Gagru Kawasi S/o Late Boja Kawasi, aged about 44 years, R/o Koropal,
Patelpara, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
8. Balsingh Kashyap S/o Late Soma, aged about 30 years, by caste: Dhurva, R/o
Village Marjum Patelpara, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
9. Mangli Modiyami S/o Hunga, aged about 20 years, by caste : Madiya, R/o village
Chikpal Schoolpara, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar (CG)
-----Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station : Darbha,
District Bastar (CG)
-----Respondent
Division Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
25/8/2022 Mr.Amit Singh, counsel for the appellants.
Mr.Sudeep Verma, Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.01 for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellants during pendency of this criminal appeal.
By the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2021, the Special
Judge (NIA Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur has convicted the
appellants for offence under Section 39(2) of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and sentenced them to undergo
R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of
fine to further undergo R.I. for 15 days.
Mr.Amit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, would
submit that the appellants have been convicted by recording
perverse finding. He would further submit that the appellants are
in jail since 6.7.2018 and they have served more than four years
of jail sentence and sentence awarded is only five years.
Therefore, they be released on bail.
On the other hand, Mr.Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy
Government Advocate for the respondent/State, would oppose
the bail application.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the records.
Considering the material available on record and further
considering that five years jail sentence has been awarded in
which they have already served more than four years of jail
sentence as they are in jail since 6.7.2018, we are inclined to
allow I.A.No.01. Accordingly, I.A.No.01 is allowed and
substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellants is
suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they are
directed to be released on bail on thier furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each along with one surety in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.9.2022.
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 given to them by
the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal. However, it is
made clear that sentence of fine amount is not being considered.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
B/-
