Devchand vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1983 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                Order Sheet

                          CRA No. 1454 of 2017

Devchand S/o Naresh Kumar Yadav, aged about 21 years, R/o Village: Likhma,
Police Station: Borai, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                      ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Police Station: Borai,
District: Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                ---- Respondent

24.08.2021 Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Sushil Sahu, P.L. for the State/Respondent.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard I.A. No.2/2017, an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment date 01.07.2017 passed in

Special Criminal Case No.32/2016 by learned Special Court,

POCSO Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, District: Dhamtari (C.G.) the

appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

Conviction Sentence In Default

U/s 6 of POCSO Act, RI for 10 years with a In default of payment 2012 fine amount of of fine amount Rs.2,000/- additional SI for 06 months.

 U/s 314 of IPC           RI for 10 years with a In default of payment
                         fine    amount      of of     fine    amount
                         Rs.2,000/-             additional SI for 06
                                                months.

U/s 201 of IPC           RI for 3 years with a In default of payment
                         fine    amount     of of     fine    amount
                         Rs.1,000/-            additional SI 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. He

submits that there is no any direct evidence available against the

appellant in this case, inspite of that appellant has been only

convicted on the basis of his confessional statement. Since,

confessional statement was given before the Police Station,

therefore, it is not admissible in evidence, thus, conviction of the

appellant is not sustainable. He further submits that the appellant is

in jail since 21.04.2016 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.

Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial

Court.

After perusing the impugned judgment, statements of the

witnesses and evidence adduced by the prosecution. On due

consideration and considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 21.04.2016, 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 25.11.2021. 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