Nitish Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1992 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Nitish Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 February, 2025

                                           1




                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               Order Sheet
                        Cr. A. No. 1896 of 2024

                    Nitish Dhruv versus State of Chhattisgarh




18/02/2025

Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Prabha Sharma, PL for the State.

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

By the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2024, appellant stands convicted as under:-

                       Conviction                            Sentence

                 U/s 307/34 of IPC             : Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
                                                 & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
                                                 payment of fine, 06        months
                                                 additional RI.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Appellant has not caused any injury to the victim/complainant, eye-witness of the incident in his evidence has clearly stated that it was co-accused who caused the injury to the victim/complainant. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of

Section 307/34 of IPC against the appellant. He further submits that material/evidence available is not sufficient to convict the appellant in the alleged crime/offence. Further, there are many contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Appeal may take some time for final hearing, hence, looking to the detention period of appellant, sentence awarded to him may be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

Learned State Counsel opposing the submission of counsel for the appellant, would submit that as per evidence available on record, appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. She also pointed out that there are two previous criminal antecedent against the appellant.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, statements of prosecution witnesses, injuries sustained by the victim in the alleged incident, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence and release the appellant on bail.

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

List this case for final hearing alongwith CRA/998/2024.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

J/-