Paras Yadav @ Lilu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3664 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   Order Sheet
                               CRA No. 916 of 2022

• Paras Yadav @ Lilu S/o Ramlocahan Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhatko
  Langrupara, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
  (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

• Amrit Lal Yadav S/o Late Tulsi Ram Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Bhatko
  Langrupara, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

• Deepak Yadav S/o Amrit Lal Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhatko
  Langrupara, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

                                                                           ---- Appellants

                                      Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Batauli, District
  Surguja Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Respondent

09/06/2022 Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellants.

Shri Adil Minhaj, Dy.G.A. for the State.

Heard.

Admit.

Call for the records.

Also heard on I.A.No.1/2022, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja (CG) in S.T.No.87/2020, the accused / appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC, Section 325/34 of IPC and Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 3 yrs. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and R.I. for 3 yrs with fine of Rs.2000/- respectively, plus default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellants have been wrongly convicted without there being any cogent and sufficient evidence on record. The appellants have remained in jail for about 2 years. It is also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellants may be granted bail as there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Considering that the appellants have remained in jail for about 2 years and also considering that the appeal may take sometime for its final disposal, without entering into the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellants.

Accordingly, I.A.1/2022 is allowed. It is directed that execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11.07.2022. They 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 dates as may be given to them by the said Court till the disposal of this appeal.

List the matter for final hearing in due course.

I.A.No.2, application for listing the case during summer vacation and I.A.No.3, application for urgent hearing are disposed of.

Sd/-

( Rajani Dubey) Vacation Judge Deepti