Rupesh Halba vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3717 Chatt

                                                                          Page 1 of 3

                                                                             NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               CRA No. 1618 of 2021


1.   Rupesh Halba S/o Rekhram Halba, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bital,
     Police Station Rajhara, District Balod (C.G.).
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                                                            (On Bail)
                                       Versus
2.   State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.).
                                                                    ---- Respondent

15/12/2021 Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Deepti Shukla, P.L. for the State/respondent.

Heard.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Call for record of the Court below.

Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 02/12/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. & Special Judge (POCSO Act) Balod, District Balod (CG.) in Special Session Case No. 42/2019, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section 452 of Indian R.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in Penal Code. default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 01 month.

Under Section 354 of Indian R.I. for 01 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Penal Code. in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 02 months.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and bad in law. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted. Even after passing of the impugned judgment, the appellant has been granted bail for a limited period. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, the appellant be released on bail.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is 02 years, he was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, after passing of impugned judgment he has been granted bail for a limited period by the Trial Court, the disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, without expressing anything on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to suspend the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant and to release him on bail.

Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 01/2021) is allowed.

It is directed that the execution of substantive 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. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court 01th April, 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 disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in its due course.

-Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

Chandrakant