Domendra Lodhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 823 Chatt

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                            CRA No. 555 of 2020

             1. Domendra Lodhi, S/o Tilak Lodhi, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Gram Bajugadh,
                 Police-Station-Chhuikhadan, District-Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                                   Versus

             1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon
                 Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                  ---- Respondent

17/02/2022 Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma with Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocates for the appellant.

Mrs. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. Adv. General for the State.

Heard on IA No.2/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 13/02/2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Khairagarh, District-Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh) in Session Trial No.- 04/2019, the Appellant

stands convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code : Life imprisonment & fine of amount Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine further 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment.

U/s 201 of Indian Penal Code : Imprisonment for 7 years & fine of amount Rs.500/-

and in default of payment of fine further 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment.

This is repeat bail application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. The first application filed was dismissed on merits vide order dated 2.12.20120.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued at length on the merits of the case and has submitted that conviction of the appellant is totally bad and there is no reliable and trustworthy evidence of prosecution for the conviction of the appellant.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2147, in the case of Dal Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. in 2000 CRI.L.J. 4579 N in the case of Sucha Singh Langah Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2017 SC 2160, in the case of Imram Mavvyuddin Malek Vs. State of Gujrat, reported in AIR 1978 SC 527, in the case of Ravindra Parkash and another Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2002 CRI.L.J. 4714 and in the case of Ashish Batham VS. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2002 CRI.L.J. 4676,and Therefore, it is prayed that he may be released on bail during the pendency of appeal.

On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits, that the earlier application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been rejected on merits, therefore, the present application cannot be again considered on merits. Apart from that there is no change in circumstances, hence, this application may also be rejected.

We have heard both the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

Considered on the submissions.

Learned counsel for the appellant has been placed reliance in the case of Dalchand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(supra), in which, it has been held by the Allahabad High Court that there is no such bar in filing repeat bail application, however, it is held that after the rejection of first application for bail on merits, the second application for bail would be maintainable on the ground of unusual long delay in hearing of the appeal and it has been further clarified, that the second bail application would be maintainable only on some substantial ground where some point which has a strong bearing on the fate of the appeal and which may have the effect of reversing the order of conviction of the accused is made out.

BY order dated 2.12.2020 the previous application was considered on merits and a detailed order was passed rejecting the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. It is not a case that hearing in this appeal is delayed inordinately, therefore, the ground available for subsequent delay application does not appear to be present and merit wise also this Court does not feel any specific reason to review the order already passed by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.12.2020, therefore, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

                      Sd/-                                        Sd/-
                (R.C.S. Samant)                           (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                      Judge                                      Judge




Nisha