Ashu @ Ashutosh Kundey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2105 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                Order Sheet

                           CRA No. 395 of 2020

Ashu @ Ashutosh Kundey S/o Pradeep Kundey, aged about 19 years, R/o Bans
Taal, Shastri Market, Near Aata Chakki, Police Station: Golbazar Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station: Tikrapara,
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                     ---- Respondent

02.09.2021 Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Navin

Shukla, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Singh, P.L. for the State/Respondent.

Heard I.A. No.1/2020, an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment date 25.02.2020 passed in

Special Criminal Case No.302/2017 by Additional Session Judge,

First Fast Track Special Court, Raipur (C.G.) the appellant stands

convicted as mentioned below:

                   Conviction              Sentence               In Default

               U/s 450 of IPC        RI for 02 years with a In default of payment
                                     fine    amount      of of     fine    amount
                                     Rs.500/-               additional RI for 15
                                                            days.

U/s 376 (2) (i) of IPC RI for 10 years with a In default of payment fine amount of of fine amount Rs.5,000/- additional RI for 03 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. She

argued that on perusal of the statement of prosecutrix, it appears

that she was a consenting party. With regard to the age of the

prosecutrix, no material evidence is available on record, therefore,

conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. She also submits that

age of the prosecutrix is suspicious, appellant was on bail during

trial and he had not misused the liberty granted to him 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 and perused the record of the Trial

Court.

After perusing the impugned judgment, statements of the

witnesses, particularly considering the statement of prosecutrix

(PW-01) and Dr. Vidya Shrikumar (PW-07) and also perused the

FSL report (Exhibit P-28) and also considering the fact that the

appellant was on bail during trial and he had not misused the liberty granted to him. Without further commencing on other merits of the

case, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the

appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the

appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this

appeal and he shall be released on bail on executing a personal

bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like

sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before

the Registry of this Court on 08.12.2021. 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.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Saurabh