Maniram Pandey & Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6240 Chatt

                                    1



              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              Order Sheet

                            CRA No. 900 of 2020

1. Maniram Pandey S/o Late Sukhder Pandey, Aged about 30 years,

2. Raydhar Pandey S/o Late Balsingh Pandey, Aged About 30 Years,

3. Budhman Pandey S/o Late Chandansingh, Aged about 35 Years,

4. Bhagat Pandey @ Hardas S/o Mangalsai Pandey, Aged About 21 Years,

5. Amlesh Pandey S/o Sukru Pandey, Aged About 21 Years,

6. Manaram Pandey S/o Late Kamluram Pandey Aged About 30 Years,

  All Appellants are R/o Mazarpara, Kumharras, Police Station Kukanar,
  District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Appellants

                                Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, through- Station House Officer, Police Station
  Kukanar, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Respondent

13.10.2022 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the Appellants.

Mr. Rahul Jha, G.A. for the State/Respondent.

Heard

Admit.

Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, application for suspension

of sentence and grant of bail to appellants No.1 and 2.

This is repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.12.2021.

By the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2020 passed in Crime No.06/2018 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

Conviction Sentence In Default

U/s 302/34 of the RI for life and fine In default of payment of IPC amount of Rs.100/- fine amount additional RI (each of the for 01 month. (each of appellant) the appellant)

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in the judgment without there being any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the statement of Badrinath Pandey (PW-06) is not reliable and on perusal of his statement, it appears that he has not seen the incident and reached the spot later on. According to the post mortem report, only single injury occurred on the body of the deceased and there is no evidence available on record which shows that any of the appellant has caused that injury to the deceased. Finally, it is submitted by learned counsel for the

appellants that looking to the above, it is good case in favour of the appellants, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court may be suspended and they may be granted benefit of bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.

Heard both the parties.

We have perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as statement of Badrinath Pandey (PW-06). On perusal of the statement of Badrinath Pandey (PW-06), we are of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellants No.1 and 2 during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2022 is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in its due course.

                       Sd/-                                    Sd/-
             (Arvind Singh Chandel)                 (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
                      Judge                                 Judge



Vasant