Arjun Madhukar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3328 Chatt

                                                                          Page 1 of 3

                                                                               NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No. 393 of 2021


1.   Arjun Madhukar S/o Shri Shiv Shankar Madhukar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
     Village Ratanpur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.).
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                                                             (In Jail)
                                        Versus
2.   State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
     Koni, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.).
                                                                   ---- Respondent

26/11/2021 Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 10/03/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/1st F.T.S.C. (POCSO) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG.) in Special Session Trial No. 73/2019, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of Indian R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 250/-, in Penal Code (hereinafter default of payment of fine additional referred as "IPC"). R.I. for 6 months.

Under Section 366-A of IPC. R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 6 months.

Under Section 4 of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, Protection of Children from in default of payment of fine additional Sexual Offences Act, 2012. R.I. for 1 year.

(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently)

Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and bad in law. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. Even the minority of the prosecutrix at the time of incident has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. From the deposition of the prosecutrix it is evident that no offence as alleged has been committed by the appellant. The appellant who is 20 years old is in jail since 18/05/2019. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted. He has already deposited entire fine amount. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, the appellant be released on bail.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular para 7 of the deposition of the prosecutrix, the nature and quality of overall evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix and other material available on record, he was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, the disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, without expressing anything on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to suspend the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant and to release him on bail.

Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 01/2021) is allowed.

It is directed that the execution of substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this

appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court 21th February, 2022. 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 disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in its due course.

-Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

Chandrakant