Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Sharma Alias Mathura vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 October, 2024
1/5
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1359 of 2024
1 - Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Nepali S/o. Late Kumar Singh Aged
About 32 Years R/o. Camp-1, Road Number-18, Near Mourya Coaching
Center, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.)
---- Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Vaishali Nagar, District - Durg
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
CRA No. 1471 of 2024 1 - Gurmit Singh @ Sunny Hansa S/o Paramjeet Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Camp-1, Azad Mohalla, Chaita Maidan Near Police Station Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh.
----Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P. S. Vaishali Na- gar Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
-- Respondent CRA No. 1383 of 2024 1 - Santosh Sharma Alias Mathura S/o Harishankar Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Camp-1, Sangram Chowk, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.)
----Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Sta- tion - Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.)
- Respondent 2/5 Order sheet 04/10/2024 Shri Uttam Pandey, Shri CR Sahu and Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocates for respective appellants.
Shri Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard on I.A. No.1 of 2024 in all the appeals which are applications under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
All the appellants stand convicted and sentenced to un- dergo R.I. for 3-3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- u/s 324/24 IPC, RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- u/s 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/- U/s 27(2) of the Arms Act, with default stipulations, as ordered on 06.07.2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.142/2022.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant-Deepak Ku- mar @ Deepak Nepali submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the offence. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The maximum sentence awarded is 7 years. The memoran- dum and seizure witness of seizure of knife from the appellant Deepak Kumar Singh have not supported the prosecution's case and from the evidence of PW-3 Amit Sahu the memoran- dum and seizure of knife from the appellant Deepak Kumar 3/5 Singh has not been proved. Further, PW-5, Deepak Sahu has also not proved the memorandum and seizure of knife from the appellant Deepak Kumar Singh and they have stated that when they reached at Police Station, the knife was there at Police Station. They would further submit that the witnesses are relative of victim and the investigating officer could not dis- close about the person who had taken the seized knife to FSL, Raipur. The seized knife was also not sealed at the time of its alleged seizure which affect the prosecution case. The appel- lant was on bail during trial. He would rely the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2004(12)SCC 528 Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Another, 2012(9)SCC 446 Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and Another as also the judgment passed by Guahati High Court in Khilli Chirouju Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Himachal High Court in Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of H.P. Learned counsel for the appellant Santosh Sharma and Gurmit Singh would submit that the knife from which the al- leged assault was made upon the victim has not been seized from him. A bamboo stick was seized from the appellant San- tosh whereas, from Gurmit Singh no seizure have been made. Therefore, they cannot be convicted for the offence un- 4/5 der Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The appellants were on bail during trial and have not misused the liberty, the appeals are of the year 2024 and final adjudication of appeals will take its own time therefore, the appellants may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, the State counsel opposes the bail applications and submits that from the evidence of victim PW- 1 Rammohan Sahu and also other witnesses PW-2 Kaju Ram Sahu, PW-3 Amit Sahu, PW-5 Deepak Sahu and also from the evidence of doctor who medically examined the victim, the in- volvement of the appellants in offence in question is estab- lished. The appellants, in execution of their common intention, assaulted the victim by knife due to which he received cut in- jury on his cheek. He would further submit that against the ap- pellant Deepak Kumar Singh total 13 offences have been reg- istered including offence under Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act and Sections 307, 392, 364-A, 365, and 387 IPC, against the appellant Gurmit Singh 5 offences have been registered in- cluding the offence under Sections 427, 452, 353, 183, 332 and 307 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act and against the appellant Santosh 12 offences have been registered in- cluding the offences of Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act and 452, 427 and 307 IPC alongwith other sections of the IPC. There- fore, the appellants are habitual offender and they are not enti- 5/5
tled for bail.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the records of the case.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties; the nature of offence & role attributed by the ap- pellants in offence in question; the weapon of assault seized from the appellant Deepak Kumar Singh; the manner in which the appellants have assaulted the victim Rammohan Sahu; the evidence of memorandum and seizure witnesses as also the evidence of doctor and also considering the criminal an- tecedents of present appellants, I am not inclined to release them on bail. The facts and circumstances of the judgments cited by the counsel for the appellants are different than the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to them at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in all the appeals are re- jected.
List these appeals for final hearing after eight weeks.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Inder