Sukko Poodiyami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6287 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                          Order Sheet

                                      CRA No. 1032 of 2021

                           Sukko Poodiyami Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari




 14.10.2022          Ms. Usha Chandrakar, counsel for the appellant.

                     Mr. Ishan Verma, PL for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1, application for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail.

By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 18.08.2021

passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, C.G. in Sessions Trial

No.47/2020, the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section

302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of

Rs.1000/- in default payment of fine amount further undergo to 3 months

R.I.

Ms. Usha Chandrakar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits

that the appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he

has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record.

He is in custody since 02.09.2020, therefore, application may be allowed

and appellant may be released on bail.

Per contra, Mr. Ishan Verma, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submits on the

basis of Memorandum statement (Ex.P/4) by which iron rod has been

recovered and it has been proved by the prosecution witnesses and also

on the basis of FSL report (Ex.P/29) the learned trial Court has rightly

convicted the present appellant and, as such, the bail application of the

appellant deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions and also perused the records with utmost circumspection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,

nature and gravity of offence and considering the Memorandum statement

(Ex.P/4) by which iron rod has been recovered and it has been proved by

the prosecution witnesses and further considering the FSL report

(Ex.P/29), in which on Articles E & F, banyan of the appellant & iron rod

respectively, blood was found and further considering the other evidence

available on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the present

appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 is rejected.

                       Sd/-                                      Sd/-
               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                        ( Deepak Kumar Tiwari )
                     Judge                                        Judge




Ankit