Gopi Kishan @ Gopi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 741 Chatt

                                                  1

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                           Order Sheet
                                      CRA No. 1720 of 2017
     Gopi Kishan @ Gopi S/o Shri Tulsi Kewat Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Gangai
     Police Outpost Lawan Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue District
     Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                              Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodabazar District Balodabazar
     Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                   ---- Respondent

Through Video Conference

11.02.2022 Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Lalit Jangde, Deputy G.A. for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A.No. 01/2020, which is the repeat application filed under Section

389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail to the appellant. Earlier application was rejected on 23.02.2018 as withdrawn.

By virtue of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

23.08.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No.68 of

2016, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of fine, the appellant

has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness with

regard to the alleged incident and the appellant has been convicted on the basis of a

weak circumstantial evidence and contended further that the appellant is in jail since

25.09.2016 and appeal is likely to take some time for its final disposal, therefore, the

appellant may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has

opposed the said application by submitting that bloodstained weapon (hammer) was

recovered at the instance of the appellant, therefore, he is not entitled to be released

on bail.

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

carefully.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and considering

further the statement of Ku. Mamta Kewat (P.W.3) and Ku. Ekta Kewat (P.W.4)

coupled with the recovery of the bloodstained weapon (hammer) at the instance of

the appellant, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail.

Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2020 stands rejected.

                            Sd/-                                         Sd/-

                     (Sanjay S. Agrawal)                       (N.K.Chandrawanshi)
                           Judge                                      Judge




Kamde