Baliram Baghel @ Matwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6768 Chatt

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                         Order Sheet

                                      CRA No. 1000 of 2019

                      Baliram Baghel @ Matwar Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey




11.11.2022         Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G. for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2022, application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 17.05.2019

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Additional charge) (F.T.C.),

Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. in Special Sessions Case No.19/2018, the

appellant has been convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 450 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 1 month.

Under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Imprisonment for life and fine of 2012 Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 1 month.

Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that

the appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been

convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He is in custody since 15.05.2018, therefore, application may be allowed and appellant

may be released on bail.

Per contra, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned State counsel, opposes the

prayer raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that on the

basis of statement of prosecutrix / victim (PW-1) who was aged about 4 years

and 6 months at the time of incident the learned trial Court has rightly convicted

the present appellant and, as such, the bail application of the appellant

deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions and also perused the records with utmost circumspection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature

and gravity of offence and considering statement of prosecutrix / victim (PW-1)

who was aged about 4 years and 6 months at the time of incident and further

considering the other evidence available on record, we are not inclined to grant

bail to the present appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2022 is rejected.

                       Sd/-                                        Sd/-
               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                       ( Rakesh Mohan Pandey )
                     Judge                                         Judge




Ankit