Raju Panka Devangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 749 Chatt

                                                1



                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                         Order Sheet

                              Criminal Appeal No. 1837 of 2018

    Raju Panka Devangan, S/o Kunjlal Dvangan, aged about 40 years, R/o Chauki Dafai, Than
     Chirmiri District Korea (C.G.), At Present R/o House of Ganesh Dheevar, Abdul Kalam Chauk,
     Siltara, Thana Dharsinva, District Raipur (C.G.)

                                                                                       ---- Appellant

                                            Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh, Through Thana Dharsinva, District Raipur (C.G.)

                                                                                    ---- Respondent

30/06/2021 Shri Samir Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri Alok Nigam, Government Advocate for the State / Respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2020 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the

Appellant.

The Appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 10.10.2018, passed in Special Criminal

Case (POCSO) No. 68 of 2018 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Raipur

(C.G.) in the following manner with a direction to run all the jail sentences

concurrently:-

             Conviction                              Sentence
             Under Section 201 of the IPC            R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in
                                                     default of payment of fine additional R.I. for
                                                     3 months.
             Under Section 4 of Protection of        R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in
             Children from Sexual Offences           default of find additional R.I. for 6 months.
             Act, 2012                               Both sentences are run concurrently.

This is the second bail application of the Appellant. The first bail application

dismissed as withdrawn on 23.01.2019.

It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant has undergone

about 3 years in jail. The Appellant has a good case and therefore, he is hopeful to

succeed in this appeal. The version of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, as she

herself has deposed that she has stated on the behest of her parents. Similarly,

the deposition made by the parents of the prosecutrix who are stated to be the eye

witnesses also cannot be believed, because of the various discrepancies present

in their deposition. The PW-5 (Dr. Rajni Chaurasiya) has deposed that there was

no sign of sexual intercourse committed with the prosecutrix. No case is made out

against the appellant. The Appellant is in jail since 08.02.2018 and there is no

likelihood of this appeal being taken up for final hearing in near future. Therefore, it

is prayed that the application may be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits

that the Appellant is charged with offence for abduction and sexual assault on the

prosecutrix, who was minor, which has been found proved in the impugned

judgment, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial

Court.

After perusing the evidence present in the record of the trial Court, I do not

feel inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2020, application

for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is rejected.

However, for the reason that this appeal has been preferred after appointment

of counsel through High Court Legal Services Committee, Registry is directed to

list this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Brijmohan