Pratap Kumar Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2829 Chatt

                                                                          Page 1 of 3

                                                                              NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                               CRA No. 879 of 2021


1.   Pratap Kumar Netam S/o Late Makhan Ram Netam, Aged About 24 Years,
     Caste Gond, R/o Village Bargaon, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara
     (C.G.).
                                                                        ----Appellant


                                       Versus
2.   State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
     Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.).
                                                                  ---- Respondent

22/10/2021 Mr. Vipin Thakur, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Shrestha Gupta, P.L. for the State/respondent.

Heard.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Call for record of the Court below.

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

By the impugned judgment dated 04/08/2021 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG.) in Sessions Case No. 04/2017, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 of Indian R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Penal Code. in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 1 month.

Under Section 506 Part-2 of R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in Indian Penal Code. default of payment of fine additional R.I.

for 15 days.

Under Section 313 of Indian R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Penal Code. in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 1 month.

(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and bad in law. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. The statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses suffer from the vice of material contradictions and omissions. In fact the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act of the appellant and as such no offence has made out against him. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty. 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, the deposition of the prosecutrix and her conduct which suggests that she was a consenting party to the alleged act of the appellant. The appellant 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 16th December, 2021. He shall thereafter continue to 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