Chattisgarh High Court
Monu @ Deepak Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 235 of 2017
Monu @ Deepak Singh S/o Uday Singh Thakur, Aged About 21 Years R/o
Village Kariyatal Newari, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Masturi,
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
07/01/2022 Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Vaibhav Kartikay Agrawal, PL for the Respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 01/2020 for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the Appellant.
This is a repeat bail application. First bail application (IA No.
2/2017) under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the Appellant was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to revive after two years vide order dated 16.01.2018.
By the impugned judgment dated 21/01/2016, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.), in Sessions
Trial No.76/2015. The Appellant stands convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-.
Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant has been erroneously convicted by the Trial Court without
there being any reliable evidence available on record. There are four
eye witnesses in this case 'Sonsay Dewangan (PW-1), Krishna
Vishwakarma (PW-2), Guljar Singh (PW-8) & Lakhan Singh Thakur
(PW-13)', who have not fully supported the case of prosecution.
According to the Counsel, on perusal of statements of above
witnesses, it is reflected that on a sudden rage of anger a fight was
taken place and the incident was occurred. As admitted by Dr.
Nandraj Kanwar (PW-7), there is a possibility that neck of the
deceased was broken due to fall to the bone. According to the
Counsel, if the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution taken as
it is, even then the Act falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II of
the Indian Penal Code only. The Counsel lastly submits that the
Appellant is in jail since 22.04.2015 and the appeal is likely to take
some time to finalize, therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant may
be released on bail.
On the other hand learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted
the Appellant. Hence, it is prayed that the Appellant may not be
released on bail.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
gone through the statements of witnesses and perused the entire
material available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering the statements of the eye-witnesses in this
case, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case where the
Appellant be granted bail and his sentence be suspended during the
pendency of this Appeal.
Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.
It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon
the Appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each of
Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 01.04.2022. He 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 him by the said Court, till disposal
of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Shubham
Judge Judge
