Chattisgarh High Court
Rupesh Sinha (Raju) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.03.16
10:29:07
+0530
1/8
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2005 of 2025
Rupesh Sinha (Raju) S/o Pooran Lal Sinha, Aged About 24 Years
R/o Rajapara Devbhog, Police Station- Devbhog, District Gariyaband
(C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Devbhog, Distt. Gariyabandh (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Order-Sheet 13.03.2026 By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.09.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Gariyaband (C.G.) in POCSO Case No.42/2024, has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of 2/8 Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent on the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant being I.A. No.01.
Learned counsel for the convict/appellant has argued that the learned Trial Judge acted in an arbitrary manner and contrary to the relevant provisions of law by wrongly holding that the age of the victim is below 16 years. On the record, neither the parents of the victim nor the Head Master of the school could conclusively prove her age beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the finding of the Learned Trial Judge is erroneous and contrary to settled principles of law. 3/8
It is further submitted that the Learned Trial Judge misappreciated the evidence on record. The material facts indicate that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual, which failed to materialize into marriage due to family objections. Thereafter, the victim and her parents allegedly implicated the appellant in the offence. In addition, the Trial Judge overlooked the decisions cited by the appellant and, in light of recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is neither just nor proper to hold the appellant guilty and convict him.
It is further submitted that the victim and her parents have been declared hostile witnesses, and their evidence does not properly support the alleged conviction of the appellant. The victim's evidence is not corroborated by her parents or by medical evidence. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to produce any material relating to the alleged obscene video or any electronic evidence connecting the appellant to the offence. None of the independent witnesses, including 4/8 the parents of the victim, testified about any such video. Therefore, the findings of the Learned Trial Court are erroneous and lack a proper evidentiary basis.
It is respectfully submitted that the appellant's mother, Hemlata Sinha, is suffering from Intramural Uterine Fibroid and is scheduled for surgery on 23.03.2026 (Medical report Annexure A/1 Colly). The appellant's presence is essential for her care and well- being. The matter was earlier listed on 19.01.2026, and no reply has been filed by the State. In these circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the appellant be granted temporary bail on humanitarian grounds to attend to his ailing mother.
Lastly, though the Learned Trial Judge held that the victim willingly went along with the appellant, he relied on her minor age to negate consent. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that, in the circumstances, the nature of the relationship and the consent-related aspects require proper 5/8 appreciation, which the Trial Judge failed to consider. He further argued that the appeal is likely to take a couple of years or more for final disposal; hence, he prays that the appellant be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that notice was duly served upon the victim vide order dated 19.01.2026, but it is respectfully submitted that the service report has not been received till date. He further submits that the case involves a serious offence under the POCSO Act. The State further submits that the gravity of the allegations and the potential custodial consequences weigh against granting temporary bail, and the appellant should not be released at this stage.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the bail application.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that there are certain contradictions 6/8 and gaps in the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The age of the victim has not been conclusively established on record, as neither her parents nor the Head Master of the school could prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the relationship between the appellant and the victim was reportedly consensual, which could not materialize into marriage due to family objections. The victim and her parents have been declared hostile witnesses, and their evidence does not reliably support the conviction. Moreover, there is no corroborative medical or electronic evidence connecting the appellant to the alleged offence, and no independent witness has provided any material to substantiate the prosecution's case.
It is further noted that the appellant has been in judicial custody since the date of conviction, and the appeal against the conviction is likely to take a considerable period for final disposal. In addition, the appellant's mother, Hemlata Sinha, is suffering from 7/8 Intramural Uterine Fibroid and is scheduled to undergo surgery on 23.03.2026. The appellant's presence is essential during this critical period for her medical care and emotional well-being, given her advanced age and health complications.
In the circumstances, considering the prolonged incarceration already undergone by the appellant, the contradictions and gaps in the prosecution evidence, and the medical urgency of his mother, we deem it appropriate to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellant.
The substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant - Rupesh Sinha (Raju) by the learned Trial Court is hereby suspended. The appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a bail bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.04.2026. He shall thereafter appear before the concerned Trial Court on a date to be given by the 8/8 Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as may be given to him by the said Court, the interval being not less than six months, till the final disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No.01 stands allowed. Since the suspension of sentence has been granted to the appellant, the application for temporary bail being I.A. No. 02 also stands disposed of.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of the aforesaid interlocutory applications and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
List this matter for final hearing.
Certified Copy as per Rules.
Sd/- Sd/- -
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Judge
Anu