Durjan Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1878 Chatt

                                            1



               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 CRA No. 1623 of 2018
• Durjan Yadav S/o Radhelal Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Mudhipar ,police
  Station Somni ,district Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                ---- Appellant
                                         Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Somni District Rajnandgaon
  Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            ---- Respondent

19.08.2021 Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Anil Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail to the appellant.

This is second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed

as withdrawn on 10.01.2019.

The appellant stands convicted and sentenced vide judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2018, passed in Special

Criminal Case No.3/2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)

Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in the following manner with a direction that all the jail

sentences shall run concurrently :-

             Conviction                            Sentence

             U/s 506 of the Indian Penal Code      S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/-
                                                   in default of payment of fine further
                                                   S.I. for 15 days

             U/s 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in       R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.5000/-
             place of Section 376(2) of the IPC    in default of payment of fine further




                                      S.I. for 6 months.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

conviction against the appellant is erroneous and without basis of any

evidence of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix (PW-3)

has clearly made admission in her deposition which shows that she was a

willing and consenting party throughout and there had been a relationship

for some time. The prosecutrix was not minor. As the prosecution has

failed to establish the minority in trial, therefore, the appellant has a good

case to argue in appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the bail may be granted.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail

application submitting that the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt. The statement of prosecutrix (PW-3) is very clear against

the appellant making allegation of rape, therefore, the appellant is not

entitled for grant of bail on merits and hence, the bail application be rejected.

Considered on the submissions and perused the record of the trial

Court. For the reason that the appellant has now undergone more than 4

and 1/2 years of jail sentence imposed upon him, there is likelihood of delay

in final hearing of the appeal and for other reasons, I feel inclined to allow

this application.

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail is allowed.

It is directed that the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall

remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-

with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his

appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10th of November, 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 disposal of this

appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Chandra