Suriet Kumar Tati vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3229 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              Order Sheet

                          CRA No. 683 of 2018

 Suriet Kumar Tati S/o Phagnoo, aged about 24 years R/o- Village-
 Thothapara, Karli, P.S. Geedam, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Appellant

                                 Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh through- P.S. Dantewada, District- South Bastar,
 Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Respondent

04.05.2022 Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. C.B. Kesharwani, P.L. for the State/Respondent.

Heard I.A. No.3 of 2022, an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The instant is the second bail application for suspension

of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

First bail application was dismissed on merits with liberty

to revive the same after completion of half of the jail sentence

imposed upon the appellant vide order dated 12.01.2021.

By the impugned judgment date 08.03.2018 passed in

Special Case No.22/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal), District: South Bastar, Dantewada

(C.G.), the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

  Conviction               Sentence             In Default

U/s 307 of IPC       RI for 10 years with In     default   of
                     a fine amount of payment of fine
                     Rs.100/-.            amount additional
                                          RI for 2 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court in the

judgment without there being any sufficient and clinching

evidence available on record. He submits that appellant has

undergone about 5 years in jail out of 10 years jail sentence

imposed upon him by the concerned trial Court. Hence, it is

prayed that appellant be granted bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has

opposed the bail application and submissions made in this

respect.

I have heard both the parties.

Perused the record of trial Court and evidence available

on record.

Considering the fact that the appellant has undergone

about 5 years in jail out of 10 years jail sentence, I am of the view that it is a fit case to grant bail to the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.3 of 2022 is allowed.

Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the

appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this

appeal and he shall be released on bail on 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 his appearance

before the Registry of this Court on 02.09.2022. He 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 subsequent dates as are given to him by the said

Court, till the disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Saurabh