Sighun Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1335 Chatt

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 Order Sheet

                             CRA No. 800 of 2019

  Sighun Ram S/o Late Kalicharan Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Cultivator, R/o
  Village- Bariyon, (Mandir Para), Police Chowki- Bariyon,police Station- Rajpur,
  District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

  State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Rajpur,
  District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                   ---- Respondent

23.07.2021 Mr. Bharat Rajput, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. for the State/Respondent.

Father of the prosecutrix has appeared before this Court

through Video Conferencing from DLSA, Balrampur. On being

asked he has opposed the bail application preferred by the

Appellant.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2019, an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment date 08.04.2019 passed in

Special Sessions Case No.52/2015 by the learned Additional

Session Judge, Ramanujganj, District: Balrampur-Ramanujganj

(C.G.) the Appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

Conviction Sentence In Default U/s 6 of POCSO RI for 10 years and In default of payment of Act, 2012 fine amount of fine amount additional Rs.1,000/-. RI for 06 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 the Appellant has remained in jail for 06 years out of

10 years jail sentence imposed upon him by the concerned Trial

Court 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.

I have perused the judgment as well as statements of

witnesses and other evidence adduced by the prosecution before

the Trial Court. After perusal of the statements of prosecutrix (PW-

02), I am of this opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to

the Appellant during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2019 is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Saurabh