Laxman Ram Nishad @ Puru vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3530 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Laxman Ram Nishad @ Puru vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2025

                                                                           NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   CRA No. 353 of 2025
                                      Order Sheet
    Laxman Ram Nishad @ Puru S/o Nanhu Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village -
    Mohbhattha, Police Station - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham (C.G.).
                                                                   ... Appellant

                                           versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Sahaspur
    Lohara, District - Kabirdham (C.G.).                        ... Respondent

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

07.04.2025 Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Pranjal Shukla, PL for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA-1 of 2025, application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023.

Pursuant to order dated 20.03.2025, victim/complainant

appeared through virtual mode from the DLSA-Kabirdham, and

raised her objection for granting bail to the appellant. Her objection Cra 353 of 2025

is taken on record.

Appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2025 passed in

Atrocity Special Case No.53 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge

under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity)

Act, 1989, Kawardha, District-Kabirdham, CG in the following manner

with default stipulation:

    Conviction                     Sentence
    Under Section 354 of the       RI for 4 years and to pay fine of
    IPC                            Rs.1,000/-
    Under Section 3(1)(b)(i)       RI for 3 years and to pay fine of
    of SC/ST Act                   Rs.1,000/-

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence.

The evidence of victim is not reliable as she developed totally

improbable story. Place of incident is a public place, but the Police

has not recorded statement of any other witness. Injuries found on

the body of the victim can be self inflicted, as detailed by the treating

doctor, and the report has been lodged after about one day. During

trial, appellant was on bail, and has not misused the liberty.

Appellant is in jail since the date of impugned judgment, and this Cra 353 of 2025

appeal will take its own time for its final adjudication, therefore,

appellant may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail

application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

of the trial Court.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the

parties, nature of allegation levelled by the victim against present

appellant that he outraged her modesty in a public place, by which

she received injuries also, the injuries found on the body of the victim

have been supported by PW5, treating doctor, and further that the

incident was supported by the evidence of PW2, this Court is not

inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail to the appellant at this stage.

Accordingly, IA-1 of 2025 is rejected.

List this case for final hearing after four weeks.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

padma