Chattisgarh High Court
Chandraprakash Patel @ Gottu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Cr.A. No. 875 of 2018
• Chandraprakash Patel @ Gottu S/o Milram Patel Aged About 49 Years R/o
Village Sunsunia, Police Station Kasdol Chowki- Lawan, District- Baloda
Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer Incharge Of Police Kasdol District
(Revenue And Civil ) Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
22/06/2021 Mr. S.P. Verma, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
This is third bail application filed for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the applicant. The first application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.11.2018.
The second application filed was again dismissed as withdrawn on
12.03.2019.
Appellants have been convicted by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 18.06.2018, passed in Sessions Trial
No.30/2017, by the Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Atrocities),
Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) with a direction to
run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 376 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
01 year.
U/s. 458 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for 05 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
06 months.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the conviction
against the applicant is erroneous and against the provisions of law. The
appellant has undergone about more than half of the sentence that has
been imposed upon him. The conviction against the appellant is bad in
law for the reason that the eye witnesses Jaishree Shandil (P.W.-03),
Smt. Neera Bai (P.W.-05) and Yuvraj (P.W.-15) have not made a clear
statement regarding commission of offence of rape with the victim.
Prosecutrix (P.W.-14) herself has not made any statement against this
appellant. The statement of Doctor (P.W.-04) is also negative. Hence,
the appellant is hopeful to succeed in this appeal. Therefore, it is prayed
that this appellant may be granted bail.
Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that
the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, as there
had been eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecutrix in this case is a
mentally disabled person, therefore, the nature of offence committed is
very serious. Therefore, this application may be rejected.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court.
Considered on the submissions. Perused the record of the trial
and after perusal of the same and also looking to this fact that the
applicant is undergone more than half period of sentence in jail, hence,
for these reasons, I feel inclined to allow this application.
Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, is allowed.
Execution of substantive jail sentence imposed on appellant shall
remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond for a sum Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 06th of September, 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.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Monika
