1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3520 of 2025 1 - (Abated) Nanhu Satnami (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-02-2025. 2 - Ganpat Satnami S/o Gunsai Satnami Aged About 35 Years (Now Aged About 45 Years), R/o Village- Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sampat Satnami S/o Gunsai Satnami Aged About 30 Years (Now Aged About 50 Years), R/o Village - Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Sukhad @ Shivpal S/o Phoolsai Satnami Aged About 40 Years (Now Aged About 60 Years), R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Sakalu Satnami S/o Dalit Satnami Aged About 36 Years (Now Aged About 56 Years), R/o Village- Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Naresh Satnami S/o Nanhu Satnami Aged About 22 Years (Now Aged About 42 Years), R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 7 - Mahettar Satnami S/o Manki Satnami Aged About 40 Years (Now Aged About 60 Years), R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 8 - (Abated) Satya Kumar Satnami (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 28-02-2025. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 15/05/2026 The Petitioners faced Sessions Trial No. 322 of 2004 and were convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.05.15 17:06:45 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 147, 148, 149 read with Section 323 and 326 IPC 3 Months, 6 Months, 1 Year, 3 Years RI and Rs. 200/-, 300/-, 500/-, 1000/- fine was also imposed on each of Petitioners and in default of payment of fine the further RI for 1 Month, 1 1/2 Months, 2 Months and 4 Months respectively. 2. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 21.10.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Challenging the same, they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2005 before this Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 23.06.2025, while maintaining the conviction of the applicants, reduced the sentence to three months for all the offences. Apart from this, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short “the Act of 1958”) was extended to them and they were directed to furnish one surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each along with a personal bond within 90 days from the date of judgment, to the effect that they shall not commit any offence, shall observe good behaviour, and shall maintain peace during the period of one year. It was also observed that in the event of breach of any condition, they would be subjected to undergo the sentence imposed by this Court before the trial Court. 3. It appears that the petitioners could not furnish the surety and submit the bail bonds as directed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. 4. Thus this CRMP has been filed for grant of time to furnish the surety and bail bond before the learned trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are labourers and, for their livelihood, they have to travel across the country. They had gone to the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha for work and returned to their village during the Deepawali period, i.e., around 20-25 October, 2025. Thus, the order could not be communicated to them by the local counsel. By the time they could arrange the sureties and furnish the bail bonds as directed by this Court, the period granted for 3 compliance had already expired. He further submits that the petitioners are poor rustic villagers and labourers, now of mature age, and are not involved in any anti-social or criminal activity. Therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to them. Accordingly, he prays that a further period of 60 days be granted for compliance with the directions issued by this Court. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document on record. 8. This Court, vide judgment dated 23.06.2025, directed the petitioners to furnish one surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each along with a personal bond within a period of 90 days from the date of judgment, i.e., 23.06.2025. Perusal of the record would indicate that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, which was for a maximum period of three years, has been reduced by this Court to three months. This Court has also extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the petitioners. From the record, it further appears that some of the petitioners are aged between 50 to 60 years and are labourers by occupation. For their livelihood, they had travelled to various places. 9. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as an exception, this Court is inclined to grant the petitioners a further period of 60 days from today to comply with the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 23.06.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2005. 10. With these observations and directions, this CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan