Chattisgarh High Court
Chintu @ Shatruhan Satnami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Proceeding Through Video Conferencing
CRA No. 1568 of 2021
1. Chintu @ Shatruhan Satnami S/o Bhav Singh Satnami, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Village Beldahara, Police Station Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue
District Bemetara (C.G.).
----Appellant
(In Jail)
Versus
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara (C.G.).
---- Respondent
11/02/2022 Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, P.L. for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 01/11/2021 passed by 1st
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG.) in
Session Case No. 33/2019, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced
as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 376 of Indian R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-,
Penal Code. in default of payment of fine additional
R.I. for 1 month.
Under Section 456 of Indian R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in
Penal Code. default of payment of fine additional R.I.
for 15 days.
(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is
per se illegal and bad in law. There are major contradictions and
omissions in the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The
appellant is in jail. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not
misuse the liberty so granted. He has already deposited entire fine
amount. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time, therefore,
the appellant be released on bail.
On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
the depositions of PW-02 father-in-law of the prosecutrix and PW-05
prosecutrix, the fact that PW-02 has stated in para 9 of his deposition that
the accused would visit his house which was objected by him, whereas
the prosecutrix in para 10 of her deposition has denied the suggestion
that the appellant had been visiting her house for the last 3-4 years, the
fact that PW-02 states that when he called the prosecutrix, neither she
replied nor did the appellant who was in her room told anything, the
medical evidence on record, the conduct of the prosecutrix during the
course of commission of the offence and subsequent thereto, the
detention period of the appellant, the appellant was on bail during trial and
did not misuse the liberty so granted and he has already deposited the
entire fine amount, the fact that disposal of the appeal is likely to take
some time, without expressing anything on merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that present is a fit case to suspend the jail sentence imposed
upon the appellant and to release him on bail.
Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 01/2021) is allowed.
It is directed that the execution of substantive jail sentence imposed
upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this
Court 13th June, 2022. 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 disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
-Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Chandrakant
