Chattisgarh High Court
Ghasiyaram Boga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 416 of 2020
1. Ghasiyaram Boga S/o Kesharsingh Boga Aged About 48 Years R/o Ramgarh, Thana
Mohla , District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
2. Sukhlal Boga S/o Kesharsingh Boga Aged About 45 Years R/o Ramgarh, Thana
Mohla , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
3. Thakur Ram Boga S/o Ghasiyaram Boga Aged About 32 Years R/o Ramgarh, Thana
Mohla , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
4. Chauhan Lal Boga S/o Sukhlal Boga Aged About 20 Years R/o Ramgarh, Thana
Mohla , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Mohla, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
21/10/2022 Shri Samir Singh, Counsel for the Appellants.
Shri Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. for the State/Respondent.
This is a repeat bail application.
First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 24/09/2021.
Heard I.A. No. 03/2022, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 05.02.2020 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, District - Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No. 19/2019, Appellants stand convicted for the
offence punishable mentioned as undera
Conviction Sentence
U/s 307/37 of I.P.C. R.I. for 10 years and fne of Rs.
1,000/- with default stipulations.
U/s 3 of Explosive R.I. for 10 years and fne of
Substances Act. Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulations.
U/s 5 of Explosive R.I. for 10 years and fne of
Substances Act. Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulations.
All sentences to run concurrently.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits
that the Appellants are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the present case. Appellants have been wrongly
convicted by the trial Court without there being sufcient and
clinching evidence available on record. He further submits that
conviction is mainly based upon the statements of Dhotmaho
Hungsi (PW-1) and Sunil Kumar Yadav (PW-2). Sunil Kumar Yadav
(PW-2) in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination has admitted
the fact that appellants were caught by search party and talashi
was made by search party only. Likewise, Dhotmaho Hungsi (PW-
1) has also admitted the fact in paragraph 9 of his cross-
examination that the articles which were seized were found on
the spot, meaning thereby, the articles were not seized from the
possession of the Appellants. He further submits that
Appellants are in jail since 16.10.2018 and they have completed
about four years in jail. Therefore, it is prayed that the sentence
imposed upon the Appellants may be suspended and they may
be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the State opposes the same and supports the judgment of
conviction.
Heard both the parties and perused the statements of the
witnesses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the
case, and on perusal of the statement of witnesses i.e.
Dhotmaho Hungsi (PW-1) and Sunil Kumar Yadav (PW-2), without
further commenting on other merits of the case, I am of this
opinion that it will be proper to release the Appellants on bail
during the pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 03/2022 is allowed.
It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed
upon the Appellants shall remain suspended during the
pendency of this appeal and they shall be released on bail on
each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.
25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for their appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 19.01.2023. They shall
thereafter appear before the Trial Court on a date given by the
Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all
such subsequent dates as are given to them by the said Court,
till disposal of this appeal.
List this case for fnal hearing in due course .
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Prakash
