Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2018
Dinesh Singh son of Ram Singh, aged about 28 years, resident of
Dhodahitola, Police Station - Bhada, District Singrauli (M.P.)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station-
Odgi, District - Surajpur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
29.11.2022 Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 1/2018, which is an application for suspension of
sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant during pendency of the
appeal.
By way of filing this criminal appeal, the appellant has challenged
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
15.01.2018 passed by Upper Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District
Surajpur in Special Criminal Case No. 28/2016, whereby he has been
convicted and sentenced in the following manner :
Sr.No. Section Act Jail sentence Fine sentence Default
stipulation
1. 363 Indian Penal Code Four year RI Rs.5,000/- Six month
additional RI
2. 366 Indian Penal Code Four year RI Rs.5,000/- Six month
additional RI
3. 376 (2)(<+) Indian Penal Code Ten year RI Rs.5,000/- Six month
additional RI
All the jail sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
It is pertinent to mention here that appellant has also been convicted
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but in view of the provisions contained in
Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has only been convicted under
Section 376 (2)(<+) of the IPC, thereby, he has not been sentenced separately
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
appellant is in jail from the date of his arrest i.e. from 26.11.2016, thus he has
completed more than half of the jail sentence awarded to him and the appeal is
not likely to be heard in near future, hence, considering the provisions
contained in Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., the sentence imposed upon him may
be suspended till disposal of the appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by counsel for the appellant. However, he submits that the
appellant has completed more than half period of his jail sentence.
On previous date of hearing i.e. on 18.04.2022, prosecutrix appeared
alongwith her father before this Court through Video Conferencing from DLSA,
Surajpur and they have raised strong objection to grant bail to the appellant.
Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and
perused the impugned judgment.
I have gone through the evidence available on record; considering the
statements of victim/prosecutrix (PW-1) and Gajru Singh (PW-2), father of
victim/prosecutrix and also the material available on record with regard to age
of the victim/prosecutrix and particularly considering the facts that this appeal is
not likely to be heard in near future and appellant has already completed more
than half period of his jail sentence, I am inclined to suspend the sentence and
released the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2018 is allowed.
It is directed that execution of substantive jail sentences imposed on the
appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/-
with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The
appellant shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 12 th January, 2023
and thereafter he shall appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by
the Registry on this behalf and shall continue to appear there on all such
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till disposal of the
appeal.
List this appeal for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge
D/-
