Chattisgarh High Court
Raj @ Vikram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 August, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.22
15:48:42
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 646 of 2025
1. Raj @ Vikram S/o Shri Nanhu Dewar, aged about 21 years;
2. Vickey S/o Shri Sanju Dewar, aged about 21 years
Both R/o Bada Bazar Tikrapara P/S Chirmiri District Koriya,
C.G.
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through P/S Chirmiri District, Koriya,
Chhattisgarh.
Order Sheet
22/08/2025 Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. for the
State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.3, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2018
passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge
Manendragrah, District Koriya, in Sessions Trial No.
102/2012, the present appellants have been
convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC
and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment
for life and to pay fine of ₹5,000/-each; in default of
payment of fine amount, the appellants have to
undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
appellants, would submit that three co-accused
persons namely Anoop, Raju and Firoz have already
been acquitted by judgment of this Court dated
13.01.2025 passed in CRA No.358/2019 and the case
of the present appellants is similar to that of co-
accused persons who have already been acquitted by
giving them benefit of doubt. He would further
submit that the appellants are in jail since
30.06.2012, more than 13 years have been
completed, and the final disposal of the appeal is
likely to take time, therefore, the application may be
allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.
Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State Counsel, is
not in a position to dispute the aforesaid fact.
Taking into consideration the fact that the
learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute
the fact raised by learned counsel for the appellants,
as such, in our considered opinion, the case of the
appellants is identical to that of the co-accused
persons who have already been acquitted by judgment
of this Court dated 13.01.2025 passed in CRA
No.358/2019. Further considering the fact that the
appellants are in jail since 30.06.2012 and the final
disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, we are
inclined to grant bail to appellants namely Raj @
Vikram and Vickey. Accordingly, application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of appellants is allowed.
The substantive jail sentence awarded to
appellants, is suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and they are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
₹25,000/- each, along with one surety in the like
sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court
for their appearance before the Registry of this Court
on 13th of October, 2025. They shall thereafter,
appear before the trial Court on a date to be 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 the disposal of
this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the he has filed the certified copy of
judgment dated 22.12.2018.
In view of the above, the Registry is directed to
trace the certified copy of the judgment dated
22.12.2018 and brought on record. Accordingly, I.A.
No.2, application for exemption for filing certified
copy, stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Ankit Judge Judge
