Tuleshwar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 807 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               CRA No. 30 of 2021
 1. Tuleshwar Singh, S/o Dhobi Ram aged about 32 Years, R/o Village Taraju,
    Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
 2. Dhobi Singh S/o Late Dani Ram, aged about 60 Years, R/o Village Taraju,
    Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---- Appellants
                                      Versus
    State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Surguja
    Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---- Respondent

16/02/2022 Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Counsel for the Appellants.

Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. for the Respondent/State.

Heard on IA No. 01/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 01/12/2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.), in Session Trial No.29/2019. The Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulation.

At the outset the learned Counsel for Appellants seeks permission to withdraw the application on behalf of Appellant no. 1 Tuleshwar Singh.

Hence, the pray of Appellant No. 1 Tuleshwar Singh for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is rejected on the basis of above submission.

Learned counsel appearing for Appellant No. 2 Dhobi Singh submits that the conviction against him is erroneous and bad in law. The evidence of eye-witnesses i.e. Pushpa Singh (PW-2), Mulki Bai (PW-3) and Jugeshwari (PW-6) is very clear on this point that Appellant No. 2 was armed with club and he has assaulted the deceased with the club only, therefore, he is not the person who inflicted fatal wound on the deceased. Hence, his case is different from the case of Appellant No. 1. Therefore, it is prayed that the application of Appellant No. 2 may be allowed and during the pendency of this appeal, he may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that act of Appellant No. 2 was in furtherance of common intention to facilitate the commission of offence of murder by Appellant No. 1. Therefore, it is prayed that his application may be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge Appellant no. 2 Dhobi Singh on bail.

Accordingly, IA No. 01/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to Appellant No. 2 Dhobi Singh is also rejected.

Registry is directed to list this case for final hearing in due course.

                           Sd/-                                 Sd/-

          (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)             (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Shubham                Judge                                  Judge