Gulam Khan @ Golu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5491 Chatt

                                                                                      NAFR

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                    CRA No. 1222 of 2022

    Gulam Khan @ Golu S/o Moh. Shahbuddin Khan Aged About 33 Years R/o
     Matadevalay Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara, City, District-
     Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                               ---- Appellant

                                                                                      In Jail

                                              Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bhatapara,
     City, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                             ---- Respondent

29/08/2022 Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate with Shri Navin Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Roshan Dubey, PL for the State.

Heard on IA No.01/2022, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 27.6.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act, 2012), Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Special Criminal Case No. H-13/2020, the appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of IPC (on two counts) and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (on two counts) and sentenced to undergo RI for five years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation on each count.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has convicted the appellant without there being any legally admissible evidence against him. The evidence of the witnesses has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. There is also unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty. He is in jail since 27.6.2022 and disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, he may be released on bail.

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

Father of the victim No.1 appeared in person and raised objection to release of the appellant on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the overall evidence available on record and gravity of the offence, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court does not find present to be a fit case to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to revive his prayer for bail if the appeal itself is not decided finally within a period of two years.

Sd/

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

Khan