Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No. 1781 of 2018
Prakash Yadav S/o Mahadev Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o In Front Of Taj Kirana
Store, Dantewada, P. S. Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Dantewada,
District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.
---Respondent
06/09/2021 Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Alok Nigam, G.A. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2020, a repeat application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2018 passed by the
Learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District South Bastar,
Dantewada, Chhattisgarh in Special Case No. 7 of 2018, the
appellant stands convicted with a direction to run all the sentences
concurrently, as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 354(B) of the : R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of
Indian Penal Code read with Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of
Section 10 of the Protection fine, to further undergo RI for 3
of Children from Sexual months.
Offences Act, 2012.
Under Section 3(1)(xi) of the R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of
Scheduled Castes and Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
Scheduled Tribes fine, to further undergo RI for 1
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. month.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the earlier
application was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.1.2019. It is
submitted that the appellant has been erroneously convicted and
sentenced by the trial Court in the impugned judgment without there
being any reliable evidence of the prosecution against the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. He is in jail since about more than 3 years
and there is no likelihood of the appeal coming up for final hearing in
the near future. Hence, it is prayed that the application be allowed.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail application. It is
submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, the application be rejected.
Perused the impugned judgment of the Court below.
Considered on the submissions. After perusal of the record of
the trial Court and looking to the length of detention of the appellant
in jail, I am of this view that this appellant should be granted bail
during the pendency of this appeal. Hence, I.A. No. 1 of 2020, a
repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant is allowed.
It is directed that the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant
shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 17.11.2021 and thereafter before the concerned trial Court
on a date to be fixed by the Registry and on all such subsequent
dates as would be given by that Court till final disposal of this appeal.
List this appeal for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nimmi
