Pradeep Maravi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4879 Chatt

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                      Order Sheet

                                  CRA No. 132 of 2021


    Pradeep Maravi, S/o Shivkumar Maravi, Aged About 22 Years, R/o- Village-
     Marma (Vaidhpara), P.S.- Trikunda, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj,
     Chhattisgarh.                                          ---- Appellant
                                       Versus
    State of Chhattisgarh, Through- P.S.- Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-
     Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.                           ---- Respondent

29.07.2022 Shri Pushkar Sinha, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Amit Verma, P.L. for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, 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 02.01.2021 passed in Sessions

Trial No. 34/2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District-

Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) as under:-

             Conviction                                         Sentence
             U/s. 376 (2)(n) of IPC                 R.I. for 10 years, fine- 1,000/-, in

                                                    case of default in payment of fine

                                                    amount- 1 year R.I.

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, the

appellant submits that statement of the prosecutrix (PW/1) does not inspire

the confidence and from the detail examination of her statements, it

appears that she was consenting party. The medical evidence also does

not conclusive and does not support prosecution case. PW/2 sister of the

prosecutrix also did not support the prosecution case. The appellant has

already served 1 year 11 months jail sentence. He was on bail during trial

and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and disposal of this appeal

is likely to take some time, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail.

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

application. He submits that the trial Court after due appreciation of the

evidence given categorical finding, therefore, the application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail is liable to be rejected.

Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the statements

of PW/1 Prosecutrix, PW/2 sister of the prosecutrix, PW/10 Dr. Snehlata

Tirky, the detention period of the appellant, who is 22 years old, he was

on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and final

disposal of this appeal is likely to take some time, without commenting

anything on merits of the case, 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.25,000/- 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