Chattisgarh High Court
Durgesh Ram Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 988 of 2018
Durgesh Ram Bhagat S/o Suresh Bhagat, aged about 18 years, R/o Rahangi,
Police Station: Chakarbhatha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Chakarbhatha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
23.08.2021 Mr. Chandra Bhushan Kesharwani, Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. for the State/Respondent.
Heard I.A. No.2/2018, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment date 08.01.2018 passed in
Special Criminal Case No.398/2015 by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur (C.G.) the appellant stands
convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 4 of POCSO Act, RI for 10 years with a In default of payment
2012 fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.500/- additional RI for 06
months.
U/s 363 of IPC RI for 02 years with a In default of payment
fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.500/- additional RI for 06
months.
U/s 366 of IPC RI for 3 years with a In default of payment
fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.500/- 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. On
perusal of the statement of prosecutrix it appears that she was a
consenting party and she herself left her house and joined the
company of appellant. With regard to age, there is no documentary
evidence available on record on the basis of which it can be said
that prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of incident.
As per the report of radiologist also the prosecutrix was determined
to be aged about 16 to 18 years at the time of incident. He further
submits that the appellant is in jail since 08.01.2018 and appeal is
likely to take some more time. Hence, it is prayed that his
application be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail application and submissions made in this respect.
Referring to the provision of Section 94 of J.J. Act of 2015, it is
argued by him that learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant, therefore, appellant is not entitled to grant benefit of bail.
Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial
Court.
After perusing the impugned judgment, statements of the
witnesses particularly considering the statement of prosecutrix and
evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the age of the
prosecutrix. On due consideration and considering the fact that the
appellant is in jail since 08.01.2018, I am of this opinion that it will
be proper to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of
this appeal.
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.25,000/- 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
Saurabh
