Kanchan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4392 Chatt

                                        1




             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                             CRA No. 1889 of 2019

1. Khemraj Das, S/o Balmiki Das, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Jharniyapara,
   Madagaon Post Office and Police Station Devbhog, District : Gariyabandh,
   Chhattisgarh.

2. Gulab Das, S/o Tularam, Aged About 35 Years,

3. Kodando, S/o Shankar Vaishnav, Aged About 23 Years,

  Both are R/o Village Mahulpara, Madagaon, Post Office and Police Station
  Devbhog , District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

4. Kunadas, S/o Tankdas, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Ghantimuda, Post
   Office and Police Station Khokhsara, District Kalahandi, Odisha.

                                                                 ---- Appellants

                                      Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The District Magistrate, Gariyaband, District
  Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.                                  ---- Respondent

CRA No. 1905 of 2019

 Kanchan, S/o Maniram Das, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Ghantimudha, Police Station Khokhsara, District Kalahandhi, Odisha. ---- Appellant

Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Devbhoj, District Gaiyaband, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

11.07.2022 Shri Shivendu Pandya and Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the respective appellants.

Shri Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard on I.A.No.01/2019, applications under Section 389 of

CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.32/2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) as under :-

               Convictions                         Sentences
     U/s. 395 of IPC                     R.I. for 10 years and fine of
                                         Rs.    1,000/-,      default    in
                                         payment      of    fine   amount,
                                         additional R.I. for 6 months.
     U/s. 397 of IPC                     R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.
                                         1,000/-, default in payment of
                                         fine amount, additional R.I. for
                                         6 months.
     U/s. 458 of IPC                     R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.
                                         1,000/-, default in payment of
                                         fine amount, additional R.I. for
                                         6 months.
     U/s. 342 of IPC                     R.I. for 1 to the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that there is no reliable evidence against the present appellants to involve them in this case, essential ingredients of the aforesaid offences for convicting the appellants are missing, the appellants were not on bail during trial and disposal of this appeal is likely to take some time. In support of their submissions, they placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fazal Vs State of UP, 2012 (5) SCC 752, where also after serving a period of more than five years of sentence, the bail was granted to the appellant and therefore, the appellants may be released on bail, in this case as well.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State counsel submits that the appellants committed lurking house-trespass & dacoity in the house of the complainant Bilar Ram and taken away golden & silver ornaments with cash of Rs. 5,000/-. The eye witness Dutika (PW/5) identify one of the accused at the time identification parade. On memorandum of accused/appellants the said articles were seized. The trial Court considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, therefore, their applications (I.A. No.1/2019) may be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties & perused the record.

Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the seizure of the aforesaid articles after memorandum of the appellants/accused, the fact that eye witness Dutika (PW/5) identified one of the accused/appellant at the time of identification parade vide Ex.P/10 and other material available on record, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am not inclined to allow the applications (I.A. No.1/2019), accordingly the same are rejected. However, looking to the long pendency of these appeals, hearing of these appeals needs to be expedited.

The appellants are at liberty to move an application for urgent hearing as and when occasion arises.er rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

Nadim