Kuldhar Nag vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1411 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               CRA No. 1428 of 2019
    Kuldhar Nag S/o Tikaram Nag Aged About 20 Years R/o Chihlagudapara Village
    Kumhali P.S.- Badaji, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         ---- Appellant
                                       Versus
    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Badaji, District- Kondagaon,
    Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Respondent

17/03/2022 Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. C.B. Kesharwani, PL for the Respondent/State.

Heard on IA No. 01/2019 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 19/09/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(F.T.C.) Bastar place Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Special Session Case No.17/2018, the Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, with default stipulation.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has been erroneously convicted by the Trial Court without there being any reliable evidence available on record. He further submits that from the statement of prosecutrix, it is well established that she was a consenting party in the alleged Act committed by the Appellant. With regard to age of the prosecutrix, there is no conclusive evidence available on record which can show that at the time of incident, she was aged below 18 years of age. Furthermore, from relationship between the Appellant and the prosecutrix, a child has already born, therefore, they are ready to perform marriage with each other. The Counsel lastly submits that the Appellant is in jail since last 3½ years and the appeal is likely to take some time to finalize, therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant may be released on bail.

On the other hand learned State Counsel opposes the bail application.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

On 09.03.2022, submission of the prosecutrix has already been recorded, wherein, she has no objection for grant of bail to the Appellant.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that a child has already been born from relationship between the Appellant and the prosecutrix and now they are ready to perform marriage with each other. Further considering the detention period of the Appellant, without commenting on other merits of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case where the Appellant be granted bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

It is directed that the 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 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 13.06.2022. 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 give to him by the said Court, till disposal of this appeal.

Further, after release from jail, if the Appellant will not perform marriage with the prosecutrix within three months then she has a liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the Appellant on this ground.

List the matter for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Shubham