Pramod Mandavi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7533 Chatt

                                                                               Page 1 of 3

                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                        Order Sheet
                                    CRA No. 284 of 2022
Pramod Mandavi, S/o Sitaram Mandavi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Semarchua, P.S.-
Jarhagaon, District - Mungeli (C.G.)
                                                                            ---- Appellant
                                       Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through SHO, Police of P.S.- Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.)
                                                                          ---Respondent

13.12.2022 Mrs. Indira Tripathi, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 08.02.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (F.T.S.C.) POCSO Act, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 53/2020, the appellant stands convicted, as under:-

Conviction Sentence U/s 376 of IPC and : Not convicted under Section 376 of IPC, but Section 6 of the 10 years R.I. under Section 6 of POCSO Act POCSO Act and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of which 3 months further imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was love affair between the appellant and the victim, which has been stated by the victim in her examination-in-chief. She would further submit that the victim in her cross-examination has admitted that they used to sexual intercourse and she never raised objection and when the appellant refused to marry with the victim then only she made complaint before police. She would also submit that the Dakhil Kharij register has not been exhibited in conformity with Section 35 of the Evidence Act as the person who has written the

Dakhil Kharij register has not been examined by the prosecution. She would also submit that PW-5 has stated that the entries made in the Dakhil Kharij register has not been made by him, therefore, it cannot be said that the Dakhil Kharij register has been proved in accordance with Section 35 of the Evidence Act. She would further submit that the appellant has already suffered 11 months and 20 days of jail sentence 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 and the appellant may be released on bail.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and after appreciating the evidence and material on record, the appellant has rightly been convicted, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.

On 28.06.2022, the victim was appeared before this Court through video conferencing and made statement that she has no objection in releasing the appellant on bail for which, I.A. No. 03/2022 has been filed which is supported by an affidavit.

Considering the statement of the victim wherein she has stated that there was love affair between them, they used to sexual intercourse, she has no objection in grant of bail to appellant, the age of the victim has not been proved as per law and considering the fact that the appellant has already suffered 11 months 20 days of jail sentence out of total sentence i.e. 10 years awarded to the appellant and the appeal being of the year 2022, final hearing of the same will likely to take time, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant and release him on bail.

Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed and it is directed that execution of further substantive jail

sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27th January, 2023. 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.

It is made clear that the date given by the trial Court for appearance of the appellant should not have interval of more than 90 days.

List this appeal for final hearing in its chronological order.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun