Khemashanker Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4006 Chatt

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               CRA No. 951 of 2017

 Khemashanker Yadav S/o Arjun Yadav, Aged About 40 Years Occupation
  Agriculturist, R/o Village Chitkidand Bansjhor, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District
  Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
                                                                          ---- Appellant
                                      Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh,
  District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
                                                                       ---- Respondent

24/06/2022 Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy. Government Advocate for the State/

Respondent.

Heard on I.A.No.2/2022, which is the second bail application

filed under Section 389(2) of Cr.P.C., praying for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant. First bail application of the

Appellant was rejected as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same

after two years vide order dated 16.01.2018.

By virtue of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 18.05.2017 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions

Judge, Raigarh (CG) in S.T. No.61/2016, the Appellant has been

convicted and sentenced as under :-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 302 of IPC R.I. for life time and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for additional 3 months U/s 201/34 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for additional 3 months Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in connection with the alleged

crime. It is contended further while referring to paragraph 27 of the

judgment under appeal that the entire case is based on memorandum

statement (Ex. P-6) of the Appellant which is inadmissible in evidence

and therefore, the Appellant, who is in jail since 22/10/2015 and as the

appeal will take some more time for its final disposal, the Appellant be,

therefore, enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while referring

to the statement of deceased's son, namely, Sumit Sarkar, who was

examined as PW-5, submits that although the entire case is based on

memorandum statement of the Appellant, but the alleged memorandum

statement has duly been corroborated by this witness, therefore, the

Appellant is not entitled to be released on bail and the application

deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the

record carefully.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case and the nature of evidence available on record, without further

commenting on merits, we are of the view that present is a fit case

where the Appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the application I.A.No.2/2022 is allowed and 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 in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of like sum to the satisfaction of the

concerned trial Court. The Appellant need not give appearance

anywhere until and unless otherwise so directed in this regard.

List the matter for final hearing in due course along with CRA

No. 874/2017.

                      Sd/-                                Sd/-
              (Sanjay S. Agrawal))              (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                     JUDGE                              JUDGE




sunita