Jayram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2140 Chatt

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 Order Sheet

                             CRA No. 227 of 2020

• Jayram Sahu, S/o Late Janak Lal Sahu, Aged about 29 years, R/o Village-
  Targawan, Police Station- Patna, District- Koriya (C.G.).

                                                                    ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station- A.J.A.K. Ambikapur, District-
  Surguja (C.G.).

                                                                  ---- Respondent

03.09.2021 Mr. Bhupendra Singh, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L. for the State/Respondent. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Admit.

By the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed in Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No. 59/2018 by the Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

                   Conviction            Sentence             In Default

              u/S 376 (2)(ढ) of RI for 10 years and In    default           of
                                fine   amount     of payment of            fine
              IPC
                                    Rs.5,000/-.          amount     additional
                                                         RI for 01 year.
 u/S 417 of IPC        RI for 06 months In          default      of
                      and fine amount of payment        of   fine
                      Rs.500/-.             amount     additional
                                            RI for 02 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. He submits that from the perusal of statement of the prosecutrix (PW-01), it appears that she was the consenting party. With regard to age of the prosecutrix, it is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no conclusive evidence available on record on the basis of which it can be established that at the time of alleged incident the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 16.01.2020 and during trial he was on bail and not misused the liberty granted to him and appeal is likely to take some more time to be finalized. Hence, it is prayed that his application may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.

Heard both the parties.

Perused the statements of the witnesses and other materials available on record. After going through the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-01) and other evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix and further considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 16.01.2020 and during trial he was on bail and not misused the liberty granted to him. Without further commenting 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.

On 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. 20,000/- 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 15.12.2021. 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 its due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Vasant