Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2367-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 16 of 2025 1. Paltan Ram Chakradhari S/o Jhagruram Chakradhari Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 2. Umesh Kumar Chakradhari S/o Paltan Ram Chakradhari Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 3. Nohar Yadav S/o Santram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 4. Hemin Bai W/o Paltan Ram Chakradhari Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 5. Anita Nishad W/o Gunendra Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 6. Giteshwar Kumar Netam S/o Milan Singh Netam Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.15 17:27:24 +0530 2 For Petitioners For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 .0 1 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, learned counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “(i) Set aside the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO and Rape Case), Gariyaband (C.G.); (ii) Issue appropriate writ/direction against Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO and Rape Case), Gariyaband (C.G.) to provide the petitioners “sufÏcient time” to obtain suspension of sentence from this Hon’ble Court. 3 (iii) Pass such other order or issue such other writ/direction as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the accused in FIR No. 122 of 2020 registered at Police Station Chhura, who have been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO & Rape Cases), Gariyaband (C.G.) vide judgment dated 19.11.2024 in POCSO Case No. 100 of 2020; and sentenced to imprisonment and fine; but as the sentences imposed were not more than 03 years, the learned trial Court suspended the sentence and granted time to the petitioners to file an appeal against conviction and obtain suspension of sentence from the Hon'ble High Court by passing a separate order dated 19.11.2024 in State of CG vs Paltan Ram and others. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed timely appeal before this Court which got registered as Criminal Appeal No. 2163 of 2024. On 05.12.2024, the appeal was listed for admission and the on the same day, the learned Single Judge admitted the appeal and called for the record, but mistook the fact that the learned trial Court had suspended the sentence only till filing of the appeal and mistakenly held that the sentence can be suspended only when the appellants are in jail and thus rejected the application for suspension of sentence on technical ground and provided liberty to the petitioners to surrender before the learned trial court and then file another application for suspension of sentence. He also submit that as per the order dated 05.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge was misconceived of 4 both facts and law, the petitioners obtained certified copy of the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by learned trial Court whereby the sentences were suspended and filed second application for suspension of sentence before this Court drawing the attention of the Court that the learned trial Court had not suspended the sentence only till filing of the appeal, but rather suspended the sentence till filing the appeal and obtaining suspension from the Appellate Court; and also drew the attention of the Court towards Rule 97 of the CG High Court Rules which provide that if the trial Court has suspended the sentence, the appellant does not need to surrender and prayed the application to be decided on merits. The said application for suspension of sentence is pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that on 19.12.2024, the petitioners moved an application for extension of time for obtaining suspension of sentence from the Appellate Court, but the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 in State of CG vs Paltan Ram and others in JamanatNasti/Suspension Matter under Section 389 of sthe Cr.P.C. rejected the said application and issued warrant for their arrest. Hence this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case. 8. As per ofÏce note dated 10.01.2025, the Additional Registrar (Judicial) has submitted an ofÏce report that in view of the ofÏce note 5 dated 07.01.2025, the present petition is not maintainable against the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P/1). 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to justify the filing of the present petition against the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners for modifying/extension of time for obtaining suspension of sentence from the Appellate Court. 10. From perusal of the records, it is evident that against the conviction of the petitioners, the petitioners had filed criminal appeal bearing CRA No. 2163 of 2024, challenging their sentences of rigorous imprisonment for maximum period of 03 years, along with application for suspension of sentence, but the learned Single Judge has rejected the same vide order dated 05.12.2024 with liberty to the petitioners to move an other application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail after surrender before the learned trial Court. 11. It appears that the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CRA No. 2163 of 2024 has filed the said application for modification/extension of time for surrender before the learned trial Court and the same has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024. Thereafter, petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.12.2024, but from the ofÏce note dated 10.01.2025 of the Additional Registrar (Judicial) regarding the maintainability of the present petition against the said order, which the learned counsel for the petitioners could not justify the same. 6 12. In view of the above, this Court cannot examine the rejection of suspension of sentence of the petitioners vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CRA No. 2163 of 2024 and further the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned trial Court in pursuance of the same, which is under challenged before this Court. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioners to to take recourse to law if aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned trial Court before the appropriate Forum/Court. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan