Chattisgarh High Court
Surendra Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 May, 2026
1/4
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1326 of 2026
Surendra Yadav S/o Amrit Yadav Aged About 36 Years Caste Ahir
R/o Bhatko Langrupara Sarguja (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
The State of Chhattisgarh Through District- Magistrate District-
Sarguja (C.G.)
... Respondent
Order Sheet
26/05/2026 Mr. Praveen Soni, learned counsel for the appellant
appears through video conferencing.
Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate
General, appearing for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 02/2026, which is an application
for urgent hearing and I.A. No.03/2026, which is an
application for listing of case during summer
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
vacation/holidays.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
2/4
On due consideration, I.A. Nos. 02/2026 and
03/2026 are allowed.
Also heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent.
Mr. Pandey, accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent/State.
Also heard on IA. No. 01/2026, which is an
application under Section 430 of the BNSS for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2026
passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Ambikapur, District- Surguja (CG) in S.T.No.87/2020,
the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section
323/34 of IPC, Section 325/34 of IPC and Section
325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06
months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 03 years with fine
of Rs.2,000/- and R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.2000/-
respectively, plus default stipulation.
3/4
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the appellant has been wrongly convicted without
there being any cogent and sufficient evidence on record.
The appellant remained in jail for about 63 days. It is also
submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
does not inspire confidence. He further submits that
three co-accused persons, namely, Paras Yadav @ Lilu,
Amrit Lal Yadav and Deepak Yadav, have already been
granted bail vide order dated 09.06.2022 passed in CRA
No.916/2022. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant
may be granted bail as there is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
Considering that the appellant has remained in jail
for about 63 days and also considering that the appeal
may take sometime for its final disposal, without entering
into the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to
4/4
the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.01/2026 is allowed. It is directed
that executive 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 his executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 29.06.2026. 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 dates as may be given to him by
the said Court till the disposal of this appeal.
List this case accordingly for final hearing along
with CRA No. 916/2022.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Rahul Dewangan
