Surya @ Pratap Singh Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4811 Chatt

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                                 CRA No. 427 of 2021

   Surya @ Pratap Singh Baghel, S/o Shri Lav Singh Baghel, Aged About 23
    Years, R/o Village Aawaspara, Sendari, Police Station Koni, Civil and
    Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.               ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
   State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
    Koni, Civil and Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

27.07.2022 Shri Parasmani Shrivas, counsel for the appellant.

Shri G.P. Kurrey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2021 passed in Special

Sessions Case No.56/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge/First FTC

(POCSO Act), Bilaspur (C.G.) as under:-

Conviction Sentence U/s. 6 of POCSO Act R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.100/-

and default in payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 year.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no reliable

evidence against the present appellant to involve him in this case, essential

ingredient of the offence for convicting the appellant is missing. He further

submits that the appellant and the prosecutrix have solemnized marriage on 23.06.2019 in Arya Samaj Mandir. On 09.05.2022, prosecutrix has

appeared before this Court and she did not raise objection to release of the

appellant on bail. It is further submitted that the appellant was on bail during

trial. He is in jail since 21.03.2022 and he has already served almost 1 year

7 months jail sentence. From the statement of the prosecutrix PW/1, she

was more then 18 years of age, therefore, the provision of the POCSO Act

is bad in law. Even, the documents submitted by the prosecution to prove

the age of the prosecutrix can not be accepted and it has not been proved

in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes bail

application and submits that the trial Court has categorically given finding

that the prosecutrix was less-then 18 years of age, therefore, on due

appreciation of evidence brought on record, convicted the appellant for

the aforesaid offences.

On 09.05.2022, the prosecutrix appeared before this Court and she

raised 'no objection' to release of the appellant on bail.

Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the detention

period of the appellant, who is 23 years old, he has served almost 1.7

years jail sentence, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW/1), he was on

bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, final disposal of this appeal is likely to take some time, without commenting

anything on merits of the case, the application (I.A. No.1/2021) 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.10,000/- with one surety to the

satisfaction of the trial Court. He shall appear before the Registry of this

Court on 29.09.2022 and thereafter appear before the trial Court on a

date to be given by the Registry and thereafter continue to appear before

the trial Court on all such dates as are given to him by the said Court till

disposal of this appeal.

List the case for final hearing.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

Nadim