Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 414 of 2021
• Sandeep Gupta, S/o Gajanand Gupta, Aged about 21 years, R/o Beside
Gayatri School, Lalkhadan, P.S.- Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
---- Respondent
06.08.2021 Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2021 passed in
Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 50/2018 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court,
Bilaspur (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as mentioned
below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 363 of IPC RI for 07 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.2,000/-. amount additional
imprisonment for
04 months.
u/S 366 of IPC RI for 10 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.3,000/-. amount additional
imprisonment for
06 months.
u/S 376 of IPC RI for 10 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.5,000/-. amount additional
imprisonment for
06 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in the
judgment without there being any sufficient and clinching
evidence available on record. He submits that from the
statements of the prosecutrix (PW-03), it appears that due to love
relation with the appellant, she herself left her house and went in
the house of the appellant and stayed with him for some days.
With regard to the alleged act of rape, it has been argued by
learned counsel for the appellant that in her statements recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix had not
disclosed anything regarding commission of rape and in Para-10
of her cross-examination she also admitted this fact that due to
pressure from her family members she has later on stated
regarding commission of rape against the appellant, therefore,
commission of rape as alleged by the prosecution is suspicious,
the appellant is in jail since 18.03.2021 and during trial he was on
bail and not misused the liberty granted to him and appeal is
likely to take some more time to be finalized. Hence, it is prayed
that his application may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail application.
Heard both the parties.
Perused the record of the trial Court and gone through
statements of the witnesses. On perusal of the statements of the
prosecutrix (PW-03) particularly the admission made by her in
Para-08 and Para-10 and further considering the fact that the
appellant is in jail since 27.02.2021 and during trial he was on bail
and not misused the liberty granted to him. Without further
commenting on other merits of the case, in my considered view, I
am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the appellant on
bail during the pendency of this appeal.
On execution 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 executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- 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 16.12.2021. 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
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till the
disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Vasant
