Chattisgarh High Court
Vinod Sori vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 January, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Proceeding Through Video Conferencing
CRA No. 337 of 2021
1. Vinod Sori S/o Shivkumar Sori, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Dokaal,
P.S. Keregaon, District Dhamtari (C.G.).
----Appellant
(In Jail)
Versus
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.).
---- Respondent
14/01/2022 Ms. Aditi Singhvi, 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 12/02/2021 passed by Special
Judge POCSO (FTC) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG.) in Special Criminal
Case No. 39/2019, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 363 of Indian R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/-, in
Penal Code. default of payment of fine additional S.I.
for 1 month.
Under Section 366 of Indian R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 300/-, in
Penal Code. default of payment of fine additional S.I.
for 3 months.
Under Section 6 of the R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
Protection of Children from in default of payment of fine additional
Sexual Offences (POCSO) S.I. for 6 months.
Act, 2012/Section 376(2) of
the Indian Penal Code.
(All 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 was on
bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted. She submits that
the appellant and the prosecutrix have already married and out their
wedlock one child has born. 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.
Prosecutrix present in person through video conferencing alongwith
her Counsel Mr. Surendra Kumar Banjare from Dhamtari District. They
raised no objection to release of the appellant on bail. On being asked, the
prosecutrix states that she was 18 years of age at the time of incident and
presently she is 20 years. Further, she states that she has performed
marriage with the appellant in Gujarat and had been living together happily
as husband and wife for a long time. She submits that out their wedlock one
child has born.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of
the prosecutrix PW-08 and her father PW-01 as also the other witnesses,
the fact that the appellant and the prosecutrix has performed marriage and
had been living as husband and wife for a long time, she appeared through
video conferencing and raised no objection to release of the appellant on
bail, he was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him,
and the 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 9th May, 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
