Dilip Lal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1132 Chatt

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order Sheet

                            CRA No. 622 of 2020

• Dilip Lal Yadav, S/o Late Shri Ramu Yadav @ Ram Lal, Aged about 25 years,
  R/o Village - Ramakachhar, Rivadahpara, P.S.- Pali, Tahsil- Katghora, District
  Korba, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, through- P.S.- Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Respondent

03.03.2022 Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, G.A. for the State/Respondent. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2020 passed in Sessions Case No. 22/2019 by the learned Additional Judge in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

                  Conviction            Sentence                In Default

             U/s 302 of the IPC    RI      for   life In default of payment of

imprisonment and fine amount additional fine amount of RI for 01 month.

Rs.2,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that conviction against the appellant is based on the evidence of prosecution which is not at all reliable and trustworthy. The incident in this case has occurred on 31.12.2018 whereas the FIR has been delayed after four days on 04.01.2019 which makes the information suspicious. Smt. Samarin Bai (PW-01) is sister of the appellant who is an interested witness as there is a dispute of the appellant with Smt. Samarin Bai regarding share in the family property. Therefore, she has deliberately made false statements against the appellant. Hence, the conviction against the appellant is not sustainable and the appellant is entitled for grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that eye witness Smt. Samarin Bai (PW-01) has very clearly stated about the incident in which the offence of murder was committed by the appellant, the other circumstantial evidence present very clearly prove the guilt of the appellant, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.

Heard both the parties.

I have perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as statements of the PW-01 and other evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court, we are of this opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2020 is rejected. List this case for final hearing in its due course.

                          Sd/-                             Sd/-
                    (R.C.S. Samant)               (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                          Judge                           Judge


vasant