Vikesh Das Mahant @ Raj vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5638 Chatt

                                                                                  NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                    CRA No. 4 of 2020

  • Vikesh Das Mahant @ Raj S/o Ganpat Das Mahant, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
    Village Sangitarai, Deepapara, Police Station Jutemill, Raigarh District Raigarh
    Chhattisgarh.

                                                                          ----Appellant

                                         Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ajak,
    Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

                                                                      ---- Respondent

08.09.2022 Ms. Apurva Nigam, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed by learned Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Raigarh, District Raigarh in Special Criminal Case (Under the Atrocities Act) No. 33/2018 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant as under:

                   Conviction                          Sentence

             U/s 363 of IPC            R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-
                                       with default stipulation.

             U/s 366of IPC             R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-
                                       with default stipulation.

             U/s 376(2)(n) of IPC      R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-
                                       with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has convicted the appellant without there being any legally admissible evidence against him. Learned trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the prosecutrix was the consenting party. The appellant remained in jail for about 4 years and 4 months, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and quality of the evidence available on record, detention period the appellant and further considering the sentence imposed upon him by the Court below, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed.

It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18th October 2022. He shall thereafter appear before the concerned trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and thereafter, shall continue to appear all subsequent dates given to him by the trial Court till disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

                                                       (Rajani Dubey)
V/-                                                         Judge