Gyan Singh Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5568 Chatt

                                                                              NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 CRA No. 1302 of 2022

1. Gyan Singh Dhruv, S/o Than Singh Dhruv, Aged About 25 Years,

2. Chaman Nishad, S/o Kartik Ram Nishad, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Malpuri,
   Police Station- Gidhpuri, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.).

                                                                    ---- Appellants

                                      Versus

 • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station-
   Gidhpuri, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Respondent

06/09/2022 Mr. S.S. Baghel, counsel for the Appellants.

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

Notice issued to the prosecutrix/complainant has been served.

Prosecutrix and her father appeared through Video Conferencing from DLSA, Balodabazar-bhatapara and raised their objection regarding grant of bail to the appellants.

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

By the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO Act) Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 60/2020, the appellants stand convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 354 of IPC RI for 1 year and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 6 months (with respect to appellant No.1-

Gyan Singh Dhruv)

U/s 8 of the POCSO Act RI for 3 years and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 6 months

(with respect to appellant No.1-

Gyan Singh Dhruv)

U/s 8/17 of the POCSO Act RI for 3 years and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 6 months

(with respect to appellant No.2-

Chaman Nishad)

All sentences to run concurrently

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been wrongly convicted by the trial court in the judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. He further submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant crime as there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in filing of the FIR. He further contends that appellants are on bail and have already deposited the fine amount and the appeal is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Hence, it is prayed that their application be allowed.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application and submissions made in this respect.

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

After perusing the impugned judgment and considering the fact that 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 appellants on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.11.2022. They 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 them by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy today itself.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

Ruchi