Chattisgarh High Court
Bharat Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 April, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 426 of 2020
1. Bharat Patel S/o Aghan Lal Patel Aged About 20 Years R/o Nayapara, Champa,
P.S. Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
2. Bhanu Dewangan S/o Bhagat Lal Dewangan Aged About 21 Years R/o Nayapara,
Champa, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
3. Ram Niwas Pal @ Gaderiya S/o Ramnath Gaderiya Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village Naya College Road, Champa, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Champa, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
04/04/2022 Shri Ravindra Sharma, counsel for the appellant
No.1 and Smt. Savita Tiwari, counsel for for appellants
No.2 & 3.
Shri Sanjay Pathak, PL for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, which is an
application filed for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellants against the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2020 passed
by Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Janjgir, district Janjgir-
Champa in Special Sessions Case No. 02/2018 whereby
the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Sections
363,366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and
sentenced to under go RI for 03 year and fine of Rs. 500/-
u/s. 363; to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s.
366 and to undergo RI for 15 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-
u/s. 6 with default stipulations whereas appellants No. 2
and 3 have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 17 of the POCSO Act and sentenced each of them
to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-
with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that
the appellant is innocent, age of the prosecutrix was more
than 18 years at the time of the alleged incident and the
prosecution has failed to prove that the victim is below 18
years of age. He further submits that looking to the
documents Ex.P-8 (recovery panchanama) and Ex.P-11
(Notice), it is clear that the investigation is suspicious and
therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant
No.1 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail be
suspended. Lastly, he has placed his reliance in the matter
of Sunil Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2010 SC 392); Jarnail
Singh Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2013 SC 3467); Prahlad
Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2018 SC (Supp. ) 2586) and
(2018) 9 SCC 248).
submits that the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under Section 17 of the POCSO Act for abetment
however, it is clear from the statement of the prosecutrix
that they are innocent and therefore the substantive jail
sentence imposed upon them may be suspended and
they may be released on bail.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in
particular the age of the prosecutrix, at this stage, we are
not inclined to suspend the sentence and release the
appellant No.1 on bail. Accordingly, the application is
rejected.
So far as the appellants No. 2 & 3 are
concerned, the application I.A. No. 01/2020 for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail on their
behalf is allowed.
Execution of further substantive jail sentence
imposed on appellants No. 2 & 3 shall remain
suspended and they are directed to be released on bail
on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum
of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 4th May 2022. They 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 them by the said court till the disposal of this
appeal.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K.Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
suguna
