Rajesh Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3429 Chatt

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order Sheet

                              CRA No. 457 of 2021

• Rajesh Dhruv, S/o Daduram Dhruv, Aged about 21 years, R/o Village Singarpur,
  Thana Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.).

                                                                        ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, through- Police Station Bhatapara (Village), District- Baloda
  Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.).

                                                                      ---- Respondent

01.12.2021 Mr. Deepak Jain, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, P.L. for the State/respondent. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2021 passed in Special Criminal Case No. H- 37/2019 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

                   Conviction               Sentence             In Default

              u/S 376(1) of IPC      RI for 10 years and In        default      of
                                     fine     amount     of payment     of    fine
                                     Rs.500/-.              amount     additional
                                                            RI for 03 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. Referring to the Para- 24 of the judgment of the trial Court, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to the conclusion of the trial Court, at the time of incident the prosecutrix (PW-02) was above 18 years of age. Further referring to the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-02) particularly Para- 11, 12 and 13, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that on perusal of the statment of the prosecutrix, it appears that due to love relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant she herself made physical relationship with her own will, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 17.09.2019 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 opposed the bail application.

Heard both the parties.

Perused the record of the trial Court and gone through the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-02) and other evidence available on record. After going through the statements of the prosecutrix and further considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 17.09.2019, 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 07.03.2022. 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