Chattisgarh High Court
Sonu Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 476 of 2020
• Sonu Gupta, S/o Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Aged about 23 years, R/o Village
Ahibahi, Post Maidi, Police Station- Saiyadraja Civil & Revenue District
Chandoli (U.P.) At Present R/o Ganesh Chauk, Sharadapara, In Front of
House of Dinesh Marathi, Camp-1, Police Station- Chhawani, Civil &
Revenue District Durg (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Khurshipar, Civil & Revenue, District Durg (C.G.).
---- Respondent
12.08.2021 Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G. for the State/Respondent.
Today, the victim of this case has appeared from the DLSA,
Durg through video conferencing. On being asked, she has no
objection for grant of bail to the appellant.
Heard on I.A. No. 02/2020, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Admit.
The instant application is the second bail application. First
bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
10.06.2020 with liberty to file a fresh after nine months.
By the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2020 passed in
Special Sessions Case No. 14/2020 by the Additional Sessions
Judge, 4th F.T.C., Durg (C.G.), Special Court (POCSO Act, 2012),
the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 456 of IPC RI for 03 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
SI for 01 month.
u/S 08 of the RI for 05 years and In default of
POCSO Act, 2012 fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
SI for 01 month.
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. He submits that mother and father of the prosecutrix
have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further
submits that the appellant is in jail since 07.03.2020 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 prosecutrix and other
materials available on record. After going through the statements
of the witnesses, considering the fact that the appellant is in jail
since 07.03.2020 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 15.12.2021. 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 its due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Vasant
