Suraj Prajapati @ Suryanarayan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3805 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                  CRA No. 839 of 2021
   Suraj Prajapati @ Suryanarayan S/o Ramnath Prajapati Aged About 33 Years
    R/o Village (Presently Residing At) 321, Edge Complex, Vidhansabha Road,
    Saddu, Police Station Mova, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Permanent
    Address - Village Ghaghwar, Police Station Bhandariya, District Garhwa,
    Jharkhand.
                                                                     ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
   State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bemetra,
    District Bemetra, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---- Respondent

20/12/2021 Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Counsel for the Appellant.

Ms. Shivali Dubey, PL for the Respondent/State.

Heard on IA No. 01/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 26/02/2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.), in Special Case No. 02/2020. The Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 & 376(A B) of the IPC and Section 5(m) R/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and life imprisonment (rest of the life span) and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- respectively, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has been erroneously convicted by the Trial Court without there being any reliable evidence available on record. The prosecutrix is a minor child and she was a tutored witness which is the only basis of conviction of the Appellant. He further submits that the Appellant is in jail since 20.06.2020 and the appeal is likely to take some time to finalize, therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant may be released on bail.

On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the minor prosecutrix is clearly corroborated with the evidence of examining Doctor. Hence, it is prayed that the Appellant may not be released on bail.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a case of penetrative sexual assault of a minor child of age 7 years regarding which the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. After perusing the record of the Trial Court, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the Appellant.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

                         Sd/-                                     Sd/-

          (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)              (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                      Judge                                    Judge




Shubham