Abhimanyu Kumar Mehar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1700 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                         Order Sheet
                                   CRA No. 1326 of 2021
Chhatramani Nishad S/o Late Mahettar Lal Nishad Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Reda,
Police Station Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                           ---- Appellant
                                           Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ---- Respondent

AND CRA No. 1393 of 2021 Abhimanyu Kumar Mehar S/o Late Parasram Mehar Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Village Reda, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

30/03/2022 Mr. Udhoram Koshaley, Advocate for the appellants

Mr. Alok Nigam, GA for the State.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021 (in both the appeals), applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 04/10/2021 passed in Special Criminal Case under the POCSO Act No. 10/2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge under POCSO Act, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)., the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under the following manner:-

                           Conviction                               Sentence

             U/s 8 (two time) of the POCSO Act.      RI for 3-3 years and to pay fine of Rs.
                                                     500/- 500/- with default stipulations.

Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have a good case and have every hope to succeed the appeals on merits. He further submits that the prosecutrix has also no objection for grant of bail to the appellants for which she has executed an affidavit. Even, the prosecutrix appeared before this Court on 23/03/2022 and stated that she has no objection for grant of bail to the appellants. The appellants were on bail during trial and they had not misused the liberty. At present, they are on bail. The appellants are ready to furnish adequate security and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Hon'ble High Court, so, he prays to suspend the jail sentence of the appellants.

Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The prosecutrix appeared before this Court on 23/03/2022 and has not opposed the bail application.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, particularly considering the short sentence awarded to the appellants, the prosecutrix has no objection for grant of bail to the appellants and the fact that the appellants had not misused the liberty during bail and at present they are on bail, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 01/2021 (in both the appeals) are allowed.

It is directed that the execution of substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of these appeals and the appellants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court on 29/04/2022 and thereafter the appellants shall continue to appear before the trial Court on all such dates as are given to them by the said Court till disposal of this appeal.

Post these appeals for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Rahul