Chattisgarh High Court
Virendra Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 July, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 986 of 2020
• Virendra Banjare S/o Ram Kumar Banjare Aged About 24 Years R/o Uslapur - Police
Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through - The District Magistrate - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
09.07.2021 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Amit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This matter is heard through video conferencing.
Heard on I.A. 01 of 2020, an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
Vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
03.12.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur in
Special Criminal Case No. 80/2017 the Appellant stands convicted and
sentenced as mentioned below :
Conviction Sentence In default
Under Section 6 of R.I. for 10 years and In default of payment of
the POCSO Act, 2012 fine of Rs.1,000/- fine amount additional
R.I. for 1 year
Under Section 363 of R.I. for 5 years and In default of payment of
the IPC fine of Rs. 300/- fine amount additional
R.I. for 6 months
Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, 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 and clinching evidence
available on record. Referring to the statement of prosecutrix (PW-4) it has
been argued by the counsel that on perusal of her statement it is well
established that she was consenting party and she herself left her house
along with the Appellant and stayed for one week with him and both have
performed marriage also. With regard to the age, referring the statement of
Nandhelal Sonwani (PW-5), father of the prosecutrix, it has been argued by
the counsel that on perusal of the statement of PW-5 it also appears that
there is no any conclusive proof available on record on the basis of which it
can be said that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. As admitted
by father of the prosecutrix it appears that at the time of incident the
prosecutrix was aged about 20-22 years. It is further submitted that the
Appellant is on bail during the trial, not misused and he is in jail from the
date of judgment i.e. 03.12.2020 and appeal will take sometime to be
finalized. Therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant may be granted benefit
of bail.
On the other hand, Shri Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the State
opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and
supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court.
Heard both the parties.
I have gone through the entire record and perused the statements of
the witnesses, particularly, PW-4 and PW-5. On perusal of their statement
without further commenting into other merits of the case, in my considered
view it is a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2020 is
allowed.
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/- to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of
this Court on 13.12.2021. 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
Chandra
