Vishwajeet @ Raja Kurrey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3475 Chatt

                                                                                        NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  CRA No. 1196 of 2021

 • Vishwajeet @ Raja Kurrey S/o Shri Ramphal Kurrey Aged About 22 Years R/o
   Village Thadgabahara, P.S. Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District
   : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                                                ---- Appellant

                                          Versus

 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Baloda District Janjgir Champa
   Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                                              ---- Respondent

CRA No. 1332 of 2021

• Ankit @ Atul Khandekar S/o Jagmohan Aged About 20 Years R/o Devgaon, P. S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

----Appellant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

11/05/2022 Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Ravindra Sharma, counsel for the appellants in Cr.A. No. 1196/2021 and Ms. Sarina Khan, counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. No. 1132/2021.

Shri Sunil Otwani, Addl. Advocate General for the

State.

Heard on I.A. Nos. 01, applications for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellants in both the appeals.

By the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2021 passed

by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Janjgir, District

Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Case No. 05/2021 the

accused/appellants stand convicted under Sections 363/34

amd 364-A/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for

07 years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 363/34 and to

undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5000/- u/s.

364-A/34 with default stipulations.

Contention of Shri Sinha, counsel for the appellant in

Cr.A. No. 1196/2021 is that the conviction is based on some

telephonic messages and phone conversation but the

prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the said mobile

phone belongs to the appellant and who is the owner of the

disputed telephone number. He further submits that the

victim and other witnesses have not stated anything against

the accused/appellant Vishwajeet @ Raja Kurrey. It is

further submitted that the appellant has a very good case in

his favour and the appeal will take time for its final disposal

therefore he may be released on bail. Reliance has been

placed by Shri Sinha in the matter of Ku. Ajita Bek Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh (Cr.A. Nos. 880/2014,

891/2014,1540/2015 and 1584/2017) decided by the High

Court of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 30.08.2018; in the

matter of Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu Vs. State of Bihar

reported in AIR 2014 SC (supp) 67 and in the matter of

Shaik Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana reported in AIR 2021 SC 3062; AIR Online 2021 SC 316.

Ms. Sarina Khan, counsel for the appellant in Cr.A.

No. 1332/2021 submits that the prosecution witness Anuj

Kurre (PW-2) has admitted in his cross-examination that he

saw the appellant at the police station for the first time and

the kidnapper has covered his face at the time of incident

and the prosecution has not proved its case against the

appellant. She submits that the conviction is based on the

statement of the victim and mobile details but it is not

proved by the prosecution that the mobile number belongs

to the appellant. She further submits that prosecution has

failed to prove the fact that the house from where the victim

was recovered, belongs to the appellant. Lastly, she

submits that the appeal is likely to take some time for its

final disposal therefore he may be released on bail.

Opposing the bail applications of the appellants, it

has been argued by the State counsel that the prosecution

has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the

accused/appellants therefore the applications are liable to

be rejected.

We have heard counsel for the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

looking to the statements of Anuj (PW-1), Pitamber (PW-3),

victim (PW-4), Investigating Officer (PW-7) and Prabhakar

Tiwari (PW-10), we are not inclined to release the appellant

Ankit @ Atul Khandekar (in Cr.A. No. 1332/2021) on bail.

Accordingly, his application is rejected.

So far as the application of appellant Viswajeet @

Raja Kurrey (in Cr.A. No. 1196/2021) is concerned,

considering the fact that the victim Anuj and other witnesses

have not stated anything against him, we are inclined to

suspend the substantive jail imposed on the appellant.

Accordingly, the application I.A. No.01, is allowed.

Execution of further substantive jail sentence imposed on appellant (Vishwajeet @ Raja Kurrey shall remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 25th July 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.

                       Sd/-                               Sd/-

                (Sanjay K.Agrawal)                   (Rajani Dubey)
                      Judge                             Judge




suguna