Ravindra Minj vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 395 Chatt

                                                 1

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                           Order Sheet

                                     CRA No. 454 of 2020

  • Ravindra Minj S/o Jaganu Ram Minj, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Ghugharikala
    Kasaibahera, P.S. Kusami, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh         ---- Appellant

                                             Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kusami, District
    Balrampur Place Ramanujganj, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh       ---- Respondent

24/01/2022 Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, counsel for the appellant/s.

Mr. Kapil Maini, P.L. for the State.

Heard on application (I.A. No.1/2020) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO FTC), Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No.36/2018, the appellant stands convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 341 of IPC Simple Imprisonment for one month & failing which fine of Rs.500/-

Under Section 376 (घ ) of IPC Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, S.I. for 3 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is totally erroneous and against the evidence present in the case. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has very clearly stated that it was the co-accused Jagdish

who had raped her in the month of April, 2018 and later on, the co-accused Jagdish had obstructed the path of the prosecutrix on 14.08.2018 and then dragged her to jungle and raped her. The name of the appellant has appeared only to the extent that he was present with the co-accused Jagdish when he stopped the victim and dragged her to the jungle but there is no evidence regarding his active participation in the commission of offence, therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the age of the prosecutrix was only 11 years and the presence of this appellant with the co-accused has encouraged the act the co-accused had committed, hence, the bail application may be rejected.

Considering on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after considering on the evidence present in the record of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2022. 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 further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, during the pendency of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                     Sd/-                                              Sd/-
              (R.C.S. Samant)                                 (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                  Judge                                               Judge


Ravi