Chattisgarh High Court
Dileep Panika vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 126 of 2021
• Dileep Panika, S/o Shital Das, Aged about 20 years, Caste- Panika, R/o
Village Pahri, P.S. Shankargarh, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- P.S.- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur
Ramanujganj (C.G.).
---- Respondent
23.08.2021 Mr. Pushkar Sinha, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2021 passed in
Special Sessions Case (POCSO) Case No. 45/2017 by the
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court (POCSO/F.T.C.),
Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur (C.G.) the appellant stands
convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 363 of IPC RI for 05 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
RI for 02 months.
u/S 366 of IPC RI for 05 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
RI for 02 months.
u/S 506 of IPC RI for 06 months In default of
and fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.500/-. amount additional
RI for 01 month.
u/S 04 of the RI for 07 years and In default of
POCSO Act fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.5,000/-. amount additional
RI 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 evidence available on
record. He submits that from the perusal of statement of the
prosecutrix (PW-01), it appears that she was the consenting
party. With regard to age of the prosecutrix, it is further argued by
learned counsel for the appellant that there is no conclusive
evidence on the basis of which it can be established that at the
time of alleged incident the prosecutrix was below 18 years of
age. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since
12.01.2021 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 statements of the witnesses and other
materials available on record. After going through the statement
of the prosecutrix (PW-01) and other evidence with regard to the
age of the prosecutrix and further considering the fact that the
appellant is in jail since 12.01.2021 and during trial he was on bail
and not misused the liberty granted to him. Without further
commenting on other merits of the case, 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 its due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Vasant
