Sunil @ Anil Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7343 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                        Order Sheet

                                     CRA No. 469 of 2021

                       Sunil @ Anil Chouhan Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey




06.12.2022         Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Arjit Tiwari, PL for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

26.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012), Saraipali, District Mahasamund, C.G. in Special Criminal

POCSO Case No. 8/2019 appellant has been convicted for the offence under

Section 366 क of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine two months additional R.I. and also

under Section 376(3) of the IPC (in alternative of Section 6 r/w Section 42 of

the POCSO Act) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to two months additional R.I.

Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastva, learned counsel for the appellant, submits

that the appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has

been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He is in jail, therefore, application may be allowed and appellant may be released on

bail.

Per contra, Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer

raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that on the basis of

statement of prosecutrix (PW-2); document (Dakhil Khariz Register)

(Ex.P/20C), which shows that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident, the

learned trial Court has rightly convicted the present appellant and, as such, the

bail application of the appellant deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions and also perused the records with utmost circumspection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature

and gravity of offence and considering the statement of victim (PW-2);

document (Dakhil Khariz Register) (Ex.P/20C), which shows that victim was

minor at the time of incident, and further considering the other evidence

available on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the present appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2021 is rejected.

                           Sd/-                                   Sd/-
                 (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                    ( Rakesh Mohan Pandey )
                       Judge                                      Judge




Ankit