Anil Kumar Ursa @ Pappu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5561 Chatt

                                                                                            NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     CRA No. 1280 of 2022

 • Anil Kumar Ursa @ Pappu, S/o Bodda Ursa, Aged About 19 Years, Residing at
   Village    Mormedh        Schoolpara,      Police    Station-    Toynar,    District-   Bijapur,
   Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                  ---- Appellant

                                           Versus

 • State     of    Chhattisgarh    Through     Police    Station-   Bijapur,    District   Bijapur,
   Chhattisgarh.


                                                                               ---- Respondent

06/09/2022 Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Ali Asgar, Dy. A.G. for the State/respondent.

Notice issued to the prosecutrix/complainant has been served.

Prosecutrix appeared through Video Conferencing from DLSA, Bijapur (C.G.) and stated that she has no objection regarding grant of bail to the appellant.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No.13/2019, the appellant stands convicted as under:-

                            Conviction                                Sentence

                   U/s 376 of IPC r/w Section 06          RI for 10 years and to pay fine
                          of POCSO Act                  amount of Rs. 1,000/- and in default
                                                           of payment of fine to further
                                                               undergo R.I. for 1 year

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial court in the judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. He further submits that applicant got married with the prosecutrix and she has no objection regarding grant of bail to the appellant. It is further submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty granted to him and the appeal is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Hence, it is prayed that his application be allowed.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

After perusing the impugned judgment and considering the facts that applicant got married with the prosecutrix and she has no objection regarding grant of bail to the appellant and there is no likelihood of this appeal to come up for final hearing in near future, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28.11.2022. 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 given to him by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

Ruchi