Chandan Rai @ Chandan Bangali vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4480 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   Order Sheet

                       Criminal Appeal No.1472 of 2021

Chandan Rai @ Chandan Bangali, aged about 19 years, S/o. Shri Shobha Rai, R/o.
I.T.I. Colony, Ambedkar Awas, Quarter No.81 (wrongly mentioned as 87), Police
Station-Chakradharnagar, Distt.Raigarh (CG)
                                                                  -----Appellant
                                   Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Police Station -
Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh (CG)
                                                               -----Respondent

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Motion

14/7/2022 Mr.A.N.Bhakta, counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Arijit Tiwari, P.L. for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.01/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2021 the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Special Criminal Case under the POCSO Act 29/2019 convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months under Section 363 of the IPC, R.I. for 6 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 4 months under Section 366 of the IPC, R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 376 of the IPC and R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 6 of the POCSO ACt.

Mr.A.N.Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in crime in question. He would further submit that the prosecutrix / victim is consenting party and it is not clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecutoin where the offence is said to have been committed and as such, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

On the other hand, Mr.Arijit Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, would oppose the bail application.

We have heard learned counsel for hte parties and perused the records.

Taking into consideration the age of the victim as 13 years 7 months and 15 days as per Ex.P-4C proved by Head Mistress Smt.Mansi Sen Gupta (PW-1), other evidence available on record and statement of the victim, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2021 is rejected.

                 Sd/-                                   Sd/-

         (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                    (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                Judge                                  Judge




B/-