Chattisgarh High Court
Sukdev @ Sukhdev Kathautiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 September, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1640 of 2025
1 - Sukdev @ Sukhdev Kathautiya S/o Chintaram Kathauriya Aged About 42
Years R/o Village - Gauradipa, Police Station - Sarsiwa, District - Sarangarh-
Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh (On Bail)
2 - Nanhu Das Manikpuri S/o Late Dataram Manikpuri Aged About 52 Years
R/o Village - Suatal, Police Station - Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh
Chhattisgarh (In Jail)
---Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station -
Sarsiwa, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
Resham Kewart S/o Rajaram Kewart Aged About 62 Years R/o Barbhata,
Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh, Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Incharge- Thana Sarsiwa District
Sarangarh, Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh.
by PRAVEEN --- Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
12/09/2025 Mr. Aman Kesharwani and Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava,
counsel for the respective appellants.
Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. for the State.
Heard on IA No.1 applications for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail filed by the respective appellants in both the
appeals.
Appellants have been convicted under Section 420 read with
Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of Chhattisgarh
Protection of the Depositors' Interest Act, 2005 (for short " Act of
2005")and sentenced to undergo maximum jail sentence of RI for
3 years and fine of Rs.2 lakh under Section 420/120-B of IPC and
Rs.1.5 lakh vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 31.07.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case (Depositor's
Interest Act) No. 2 of 2025 by learned Special Judge (Depositor's
Interest Act, 2005), Raigarh, District -Raigarh (CG).
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that these
appeals are filed against conviction order passed by learned
Special Judge (Depositors' Interest Act, 2005). Appellants have
been convicted for period of 3 years and have also been imposed
total fine of Rs.3.5 lakh. They contended that though there is
provision under Section 16 (2) of the Act of 2005 to deposit 75% of
the liability with competent authority, however, liability as
apportioned by Court has been imposed as fine and liability
towards major amount has been imposed upon co-accused
Narayan Das Manikpuri. They also contended that proceeding of
attachment has been separately initiated by the competent
authority under the Act of 2005.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes
the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and submits
that as per his information order of attachment of property of the
appellants and other co-accused has already been passed by
competent authority, copy of which is placed on record as
Annexure R-2.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the order of attachment placed on record.
Movable and immovable property of appellants herein have
been attached by Collector vide order dated 16.05.2025. As
submitted by learned counsel for the appellants fine amount
imposed upon appellant- Sukdev @ Sukhdev Kathautiya (CRA
No.1640 of 2025) and Resham Kewart (CRA No.1758 of 2025)
has already been deposited.
Learned counsel appearing for appellants in CRA No.1640
of 2025 submits that he has also made prayer for suspension of
fine amount imposed on appellant No.2- Nanhu Das Manikpuri
who is continuously in jail and his property is also attached. He
also submits that appellants 1 & 2 have also undergone about 1
year and 6 months of their jail sentence.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant - Resham Kewart
in CRA No.1758 of 2025 also submits that appellant -Resham
Kewart has also undergone about 1 year and 6 months of jail
sentence.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective appellants and also observation made by learned trial
Court in para-106 of the impugned judgment, I consider it to be an
appropriate case to suspend the substantive jail sentence imposed
on the appellants.
Accordingly, IA No.1 filed by appellants in both the appeals
are allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence
imposed upon the appellants shall remain suspended during
pendency of the appeal and they shall be released on bail on each
of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one local
surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court, for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27th
November 2025. Thereafter, they shall appear before the
concerned trial Court on the date given by the Registry of this
Court and continue to appear there till final disposal of this appeal.
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, during
pendency of the appeal, it is further directed that fine amount
imposed upon appellant No.2 Nanhu Das Manikpuri in CRA
No.1640 of 2025 shall also remain suspended.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/--/-/---/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
