Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Kumar Rangare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 November, 2022
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 184 of 2021
Krishna Kumar Rangare, S/o Shri Koduram Rangare, Aged About 56 Years, R/o
Balaghat (M.P.) Presently residing at Iland Colony, Vidhansabha, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.) (As Per Challan)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Mana
Camp, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---Respondent
24.11.2022 Mr. Shankar Borkute & Mr. Nitin Meshra, counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 07/2022, an application for extension of Interim
Bail which was granted by this Court on 24.08.2022.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Second FTC, Special Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in
Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No. 83/2018, the appellant stands
convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 376 (2)(>), punishable U/s : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.
376(2) alternatively Section 5000/-and in default of payment of
376 (3) punishable U/s 376 fine, further R.I. for 3 months.
(2)(>), punishable U/s 376 (2)
of IPC.
U/s 376 (2)(p), punishable : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.
U/s376(2) alternatively Section 10000/- and in default of payment
5(<) punishable U/s 6 of of fine, further R.I. for 3 months.
POCSO Act, according to (Both the sentences shall run
punishable U/s 42 of the Act, concurrently).
U/s 376(2)(p),punishable U/s
376(2) of IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant
is suffering from serious heart problem and has been advised for by-
pass surgery and because of non-availability of operation facility at
medical college Raipur, his operation could not be performed at that
time and in support of which, medical documents (Annexure A/1) has
been filed. He would further submit that this Court vide order dated
24.08.2022 is pleased to grant interim bail to the appellant for one
month on the ground of advice for by-pass surgery and the appellant is
directed to surrender before concerned trial Court on 24.09.2022.
Further, this Court vide order dated 23.09.2022 extended the interim
bail granted to the appellant for one month and directed the appellant to
surrender before concerned trial Court on 24.11.2022. He would also
submit that now the health condition of the appellant is very deteriorated
and the by-pass surgery is necessary for his life but the facility of by-
pass surgery is not available in the said hospital due to some technical
problem, therefore, appellant is seeking another hospital at Bangalore
for his better treatment. Therefore, the interim bail granted to the
appellant may be extended for further three months.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
extension of the interim bail granted to the appellant and submitted that
a false story has been projected by the appellant and even after grant of
interim bail, by-pass surgery has not been done, which shows that the
conduct of the appellant is not fair.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
medical documents of the appellant placed on record.
After going through the application and the documents submitted
by the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I.A. No. 07/2022 is allowed. The appellant is granted further
extension of interim bail upto 13th December, 2022.
The appellant is directed to surrender positively himself before the
concerned Jail Superintendent on 14th December, 2022.
List this case on 14th December, 2022.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
