Yeshwant Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 360 Chatt

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                            CRA No. 372 of 2019

               Yeshwant Yadav, S/o Ramesh Yadav, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Preetam
                Nagar, Infront of Shamshan Ghat, Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur
                Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                                   Versus

               State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police
                Station Gudhiyari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                  ---- Respondent

21/01/2022 Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard on IA No.1 of 2021, repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 02/11/2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge(F.T.C.), Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.) in Session Trial No.- 146/2017, the Appellant stands convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 376 Part (1) of IPC. : R.I. for 7 years & fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further 2 months additional rigorous imprisonment.

Earlier bail application filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.04.2019 and liberty was granted to the appellant to revive this application after two yeas.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. His conviction is totally erroneous and bad in law. The conduct of the prosecutrix PW-2 according to her statement in Court clearly shows that she was a consenting party. Further, the appellant has undergone 4 ½ years in jail and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is 7 years and for the reason that there is no likelihood of this appeal to come up for final hearing in near future, hence, it is prayed that he may be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the application be rejected.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

Considered on the submissions. Taking into consideration all the facts present in the case and also the appellant has already undergone 2/3 of the sentence in jail, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on him executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04/04/2022. 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 the disposal of this appeal.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Nisha