Chattisgarh High Court
Rajkumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2022
1 of 4
CRA No. 1728 of 2019
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1728 of 2019
1. Rajkumar S/o late Salikram Marawi, aged about 22 years;
2. Rajesh S/o late Salikram Marawi, aged about 19 years;
3. Fuleshwari Bai, W/o Rajkumar Marawi (wrongly mentioned as Rajkumari),
aged about 20 year;
All are R/o Village - Polmi Banjhi Aamapara, PS-Kukdur, District Kabirdham,
C.G.
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Kukdur , Disrict - Kabirdham
C.G.
Division Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
25.08.2022 Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Arjit Tiwari, PL for the State / respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.2, application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2019 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Kabirdham, C.G. in
Sessions Trial No. 26/2018 the present appellants have been
2 of 4
CRA No. 1728 of 2019
convicted as under:-
Conviction (against all the Sentence (against all the
appellants) appellants)
Under Section 302/34 of IPC R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default of payment of fine further
R.I. 2 months
Under Section 201/34 of IPC R.I. for one year and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
fine further R.I. for one month.
Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, submits
that he is only pressing the bail application on behalf of appellant
No.3, Fuleshwari Bai. He further submits that there is no evidence
connecting appellant No.3 in offence in question and merely
because she is the daughter-in-law of the deceased-Fuleshwar Bai,
she has been implicated in offence in question. He further submits
that wooden stick (dunda / lathi) was recovered from appellant No.1,
Rajkumar, and no seizure and recovery were made from appellant
No.3. He further submits that appellant No.3 is in jail since
03.04.2018 along with child who is aged about 2 years ½ month,
therefore, the application for grant of bail may be allowed and
appellant No.3 may be released on bail.
Per contra, Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned State counsel, opposes
the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. He
further submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted the
3 of 4
CRA No. 1728 of 2019
appellants and, as such, the application for grant of bail to the
appellants deserves to be rejected as sufficient evidence is
available against appellant No.3.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered their rival submissions and also perused the records
with utmost circumspection.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellants bail application filed on behalf of appellant No.1,
Rajkumar, & appellant No.2, Rajesh is dismissed as not pressed.
Taking into consideration the material available on record and
the fact that no recovery was made from appellant No. 3 and also
considering the evidence available against her connecting her in
offence in question and further considering the that she is in jail
since 03.04.2018 along with child who is aged about 2 years ½
month, we are of the view that application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.3,
Fuleshwari Bai, is allowed.
The substantive jail sentence awarded to appellant No.3,
Fuleshwari Bai, is suspended during the pendency of this appeal
and she is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, along with one surety in
the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for her
4 of 4
CRA No. 1728 of 2019
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 30 th of September,
2022. She 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 her by
the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that family
members of appellant No.3 are in jail and no other person is present
to furnish bail bond.
In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the
appellants, we are inclined to release appellant No.3 Fuleshwari
Bai, only on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- personal bond without
surety.
However, observation made herein above is only confined to
disposal of bail application and shall not be construed as opinion on
merits of the matter.
In view of the above, I.A. No.2 stands disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Ankit
