Podhiyam Bheema vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 689 Chatt

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 Order Sheet
                       Criminal Appeal No.1337 of 2016

 •   Podhiyam Bheema S/o Shri Podhiyam Nanga, Dorla, Aged About 35 Years
     R/o Village Boddigudha, Presently- Salawajudum Para, Dornapal, Police
     Station- Dornapal, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh
                                                                        --- Appellant
                                   Versus
 •   The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer In Charge Of Police Station-
     Dornapal, District- Sukma (Dantewada), Chhattisgarh
                                                                       ---Respondent

09/02/2022 Mr. Roop Naik, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.2, an application u/s 389(2) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.07.2016, in Sessions Case No.338/2011, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in the following manner :-

                    Conviction                                 Sentence

             U/s. 302 of the Indian Penal         Life Imprisonment.
             Code

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the conviction against the appellant is erroneous and unsustainable. The appellant is in jail since 23.09.2011 and there is likelihood of delay in final hearing of this case, therefore, the application may be allowed and appellant be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on statement of eye witnesses P.W.-2 and P.W.-4, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

After considering on the submissions and looking to the facts present in the case, we are of this view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.2, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is rejected.

Also, heard on I.A. No.3, an application for hearing the case urgently.

Considering that the appellant has undergone about 10 years of jail sentence so far, therefore, we feel inclined to allow this application.

Accordingly, I.A. No.3, an application for hearing the case urgently, is allowed.

List this case for final hearing in the month of March 2022.

Certified copy as per rules.

                     Sd/-                                            Sd/-

              (R.C.S. Samant)                              (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                  Judge                                           Judge




Monika