Madhav Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4847 Chatt

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Order Sheet

CRA No. 1345 of 2019

Madhav Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh

DB Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

28.07.2022 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Sameer Uraon, G.A. for the State.

Mr. Abhishek Saraf, counsel for the complainant.

Heard on I.A. No. 2, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No. 1 namely Madhav Yadav.

Appellant No. 1 namely Madhav Yadav has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for one month as well as R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for one month, respectively, by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh vide impugned judgment dated 05/09/2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 93/2018.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant No. 1 Madhav Yadav along with co-accused Ajay Yadav (appellant No. 2) committed murder of one Manohar Rathiya with an axe on the pretext that he used to look at Manohar Rathiya's wife with bad intention and also spoke filthily with the wife and mother of Manohar Rathiya and also murdered one Shyamlal, who had witnessed the appellants murdering Manohar Rathiya and appellant No. 1, thereby, committed the aforesaid offences.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is no eye-witness to the incident and the trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of memorandum and seizure. He would further submit that appellant No. 2 has already been released on bail vide order dated 26/02/2020 and the appellant No. 1 is in jail since 26/05/2018, therefore, the instant application be allowed and he be released on bail. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhav v. State of Madhya Pradesh1.

Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material available on record against appellant No. 1 in the shape of memorandum (Ex. P/19) on the basis of which blood stained axe (tangi) has been seized vide Ex. P/23 which has been duly proved by memorandum and seizure witnesses Ramsingh (P.W.-11) and Minketan (P.W.-13) and further taking into consideration the FSL report (Ex. P/49) according to which blood stains have been found on the axe though it could not be ascertained that the blood found on the axe was human blood and also considering that motive of offence has also been proved against appellant No. 1 by Nirmal Yadav (P.W.-6), we are not inclined to grant bail to

1 AIR 2021 SC 4031 appellant No. 1 - Madhav Yadav.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 is hereby rejected.

                       Sd/-                         Sd/-
                (Sanjay K. Agrawal)        (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                      Judge                         Judge



Harneet