Chattisgarh High Court
Naval Kishore Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 June, 2025
1/4
Digitally signed
by SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL
Date:
2025.06.12
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
10:20:31
+0530
CRA No. 888 of 2025
• Naval Kishore Dubey S/o Maniram Aged About 51 Years R/o
House No. W/5 Yadunandan Nagar Tifra P.S. Sirgitti Bilaspur
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bilaspur
(C.G.)
... Respondent
Order Sheet
11/06/2025 Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. for the State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Also Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an
application under Section 430 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2025
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC),
Bilaspur (C.G.) in S.T. No. 135/2021, the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below :
Conviction Sentence
Under Section RI for 10 years and fine of
376(2)(n) of IPC Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment
of fine amount additional 02
imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the
case. He further submits that the trial Court has failed
to appreciate the fact that there is much delay in
lodging of FIR as the incident took place in the year
2014 and the FIR has been lodged on 23.01.2020 and
there is no proper explanation for the delay in lodging
the FIR. He next submits that prior to this incident,
there was land dispute between both the parties, which
has been sold by the complainant and the amount has
not been paid to the complainant, therefore, this FIR
has been lodged. He also submits that during trial
appellant was in jail for about 3.5 months and now in
jail after passing of the judgment since 28.04.2025 and
appeal is likely to take considerable time. Hence, it is
prayed that I.A. No. 01/2025 may be allowed and the
appellant may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes
the application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail. He further submits that the appellant has three
criminal antecedents and prosecutrix, investigation
officer and doctor have supported the case. It is further
submitted that under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, the
maximum sentence is 10 years, at this stage, he may
not be released on bail.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the
genesis of the dispute between the parties stems from a
land dispute, allegedly arising out of monetary
transactions. Notably, the incident occurred in 2014,
but the report was lodged in 2020. During the trial, the
appellant was in jail for about 3.5 months. Following
the judgment, the appellant has been in jail since
28.04.2025. The victim is a 49-year-old divorced
woman. Given the contradictions in the statements of
the victim and Durgesh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) and
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
on record, I find it appropriate to release the appellant
on bail during the pendency of this appeal, as the
appeal is likely to take some time to be finalized
Accordingly, the I.A. No. 01/2025 is allowed.
The execution of substantive jail sentences
imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended
during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be
released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum
of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on
28.08.2025. He 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 him by the said Court,
till disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in its chronological
order.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
