Chattisgarh High Court
Karan Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 470 of 2021
• Karan Yadav, S/o Shri Dinesh Yadav, Aged about 19 years, R/o Village Ghutku
Mahamaya Para, P.S.- Koni, District- Bilaspur, Civil & Revenue District- Bilaspur
(C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, through- Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
---- Respondent
27.09.2021 Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed in
Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 126/2018 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court,
Bilaspur (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as mentioned
below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 363 of IPC RI for 07 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.2,000/-. amount additional
imprisonment for
04 months.
u/S 366 of IPC RI for 07 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.3,000/-. amount additional
imprisonment for
06 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 conviction against the appellant is
erroneous and unsustainable. The trial Court has framed the
charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC as well as
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and because of the unreliability of
the prosecutrix (PW-09), the trial Court has acquitted the
appellant from the charge under Section 376 of the IPC as well
as Section 6 of the POCSO Act, therefore, on the basis of same
evidence the conviction against the appellant in remaining
sections is also erroneous which is liable to be set aside. He
further submits that the appellant is in jail since 27.09.2018 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 and submissions made in this
respect. He submitted that prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, conviction and sentence
against the appellant is proper and he is not entitled to be
released on bail.
Heard both the parties and perused the record of the trial
Court.
After perusal of the evidence present in the record of the
trial Court and considering the submissions that have been made
by counsel for the appellant, I feel inclined to release the
appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
It is directed that the 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 09.12.2021. 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/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Vasant
