1 2025:CGHC:14253-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1331 of 2019 1 - Laamu S/o Late Rameshwar Tilakwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bairak, Police Station Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bodla, District- Kabirdham(Kawardha), Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 25/03/2025 Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. Heard on IA No.3/2019, application dated 05.11.2019 seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he filed this appeal before this Court upon instructions of the Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 accused/appellant Laamu Tilakwar against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2015 and after filing this appeal, it came to his knowledge that the appellant has escaped from the Jail at Kawardha and he has no instructions from the appellant, therefore, he wants to withdraw this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed affidavit in support of this application. 4. This Court on 03.08.2022, 01.09.2022, 04.08.2023 and 14.09.2023 issued non bailable warrant of arrest and direction to the Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Jail for production of the appellant. On 16.10.2023, a report was called from the concerned jail as to what steps have been taken regarding arrest of the appellant Lamu Tilakwar. On 30.11.2023 again, report was called from the Director General, Jail after conducting enquiry as to what steps have been taken for arrest of the appellant. On 11.01.2024 again a fresh report was called from the Director General (Jail). On 09.07.2024 again, fresh report was called from the Director General (Jail) and on 21.08.2024, Director General (Jail) was directed to file his own affidavit as to what steps have been taken by him to arrest the appellant. 5. Again on 19.02.2025, the Director General, Jail was directed to file is own affidavit as to what steps have been taken to arrest the appellant who has been absconding since 29.06.2015. On 13.03.2025, Mr. Himanshu Gupta filed his affidavit/report in 3 compliance of the order dated 13.03.2025 and as per report, the appellant Lamu Tilakwar was absconding from Kawardha Jail since 29.06.2015 with one Kewaldas Manikpuri and after some time Kewaldas Manikpuri was arrested but the appellant Lamu Tilakwar could not be arrested despite several efforts being made and as per rojnamchasanha dated 06.01.2025 and 10.01.2025, since 2015 no one heard about him and nobody knows his address and no property belongs to the accused as per report of the competent officer. 6. It is clear from the record of this appeal that this appeal was filed on 11.09.2019 and as per record of jail and affidavit of competent officer, the appellant was absconding from jail since 2015. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that he filed this appeal on instructions of the mother of the appellant Lamu Tilakwar namely mother Smt. Khilauna Bai, who was also co- accused in ST No.52/2014, in which the appellant Lamu and the co-accused Khilauna Bai were convicted by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel also stated that he had no knowledge that the accused Lamu was absconding from jail since 2015 and when he knew about the same, he immediately filed this application to withdraw this appeal. Learned counsel also submitted that the co-accused Khilauna Bai also filed CRA No.1067/2015 before this Court, in which this Court passed judgment on 04.08.2023 and she was acquitted by this Court, but she had no knowledge of whereabouts of the accused Lamu 4 Tilakwar. 7. It is clear from all material available on record that the appellant Lamu was absconding from jail since 2015 and this appeal was filed in the year 2019 without instructions of the appellant Lamu and as per affidavit and other documents filed by the police authorities, it is clear that for 9 years, no one heard about the accused Lamu and the learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that he is unable to argue the matter in absence of instructions by the appellant. He is also not sure whether the appellant is alive or not and for 9 years, no one heard about him. 8. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this application is allowed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in favour of the appellant that he may file appeal in future, if he so desires. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Sachin Singh Rajput Judge Judge Nirala