Chattisgarh High Court
Mahal Say vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 811 of 2017
• Mahal Say, S/o Late Khasra Ram, Aged about 38 years, R/o Gurguri, Police
Station- Sanna, District- Jashpur (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh- Through- Police Station- Sanna, District- Jashpur, (C.G.).
---- Respondent
10.08.2021 Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
Notice isseud to the victim/complainant is received
unserved.
Since as observed by this Court in CRA No. 761 of 2021
(Jalesh @ Jaleshwar Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) that notice
to the victim or one of his/her parents or his/her guardian is not
required.
Heard on I.A. No. 02/2017, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2016 passed in
Sessions Case No. 16/2016 by the learned Special Judge under
the POCSO Act, 2012 and Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.),
Jashpur (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as mentioned
below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 366-क of IPC RI for 04 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.500/-. amount additional
RI for 02 months.
u/S 06 of the RI for 10 years and In default of
POCSO Act fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
RI for 03 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 evidence available on
record. Though as opined by the Doctor attempt was committed
by somebody prior to two days before the examination but in her
Court statements, the prosecutrix (PW-06) admitted the fact that
the appellant did not do anything with her. He further submits that
mother and father of the prosecutrix have also not supported the
case of the prosecution. There are material contradictions and
omissions occurred in the statements of the prosecutrix,
therefore, her statements is not reliable. He lastly submits that the
appellant is in jail since 08.04.2016 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 statements of the witnesses and other
materials available on record. After going through the statements
of the prosecutrix and other witnesses and further considering the
fact that the appellant is in jail since 08.04.2016 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 09.12.2021. 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
