Chattisgarh High Court
Shivkumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 August, 2025
1/4
Digitally signed
by BHOLA NATH
KHATAI
Date: 2025.08.21
10:57:54 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1375 of 2025
1 - Shivkumar S/o Suklal Panariya Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Bhedagarh, Police Station - Kukdur, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
2 - Mamta Bai W/o Shivkumar Panariya Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
Bhedagarh, Police Station - Kukdur, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
3 - Naresh Kumar S/o Suklal Panariya Aged About 25 Years R/o Village
Bhedagarh, Police Station - Kukdur, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Kabirdham, Distt.
Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
Order Sheet
20/08/2025 Mr. Wasim Miyan, counsel for appellants.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. for State.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2025 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District
Kabirdham (CG) in S. T. No. 05/2022, the appellants have
been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 306 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default of payment of fine,
additional R.I. for 1 month.
Learned counsel for appellants submits that the
appellants are innocent and they have been falsely
implicated in this case. He submits that the family members
of the deceased have not stated anything against
appellants 1 & 2 and the only allegation against appellant
No.3 Naresh Kumar is that he wanted to divorce the
deceased and marry another woman, because of which she
committed suicide. He submits that the family members
have also stated that after knowing the fact that appellant
No.3 Naresh did not want to keep the deceased in his
house, she committed suicide. He submits that during trial,
appellants 1 & 2 were granted anticipatory bail. He further
submits that the appellants are in jail from the date of
impugned judgment i.e. 07.07.2025, the appeal being of the
year 2025, there is no likelihood of its early final disposal,
therefore, considering all these facts the jail sentence of the
appellants may be suspended till the final disposal of the
appeal.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes
the bail application and submits that considering the nature
of offence, the appellants do not deserve to be released on
bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the
material available on record against appellant No.3 Naresh
Kumar, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to him.
However, considering the overall material available on
record and the statements of the witnesses, I am inclined to
suspend the jail sentence imposed upon appellants No. 1 &
2.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2025 regarding suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.3 Naresh
Kumar is rejected.
However, I.A. No.01/2025 regarding suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellants No. 1 & 2
Shivkumar & Mamta Bai is allowed. It is directed that
the substantive jail sentence imposed upon appellant
No.1 Shivkumar & appellant No.2 Mamta Bai shall remain
suspended till final disposal of this appeal and they shall
be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for
a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 8th
October, 2025. They shall thereafter appear before the
concerned trial Court on a date to be given by the
Registry of this Court and thereafter, continue to appear
before the trial Court on all such subsequent dates as are
given to them by the said Court till disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No.02/2025 for grant of Ad-
interim bail to appellant No.2 stands disposed of.
Record of the Trial Court has already been received.
List the case for final hearing after 3 weeks.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
