Niyaz Ahmed vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5955 Chatt

                                                                          NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             CRA No. 562 of 2020

 • Niyaz Ahmed, S/o Shri Shiraz Ahmed, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Near
   Moti Nagar Petrol Pump, Police Station- Tikrapara, Tahsil & District
   Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

 • State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station-
   Ganj, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ---- Respondent

22/09/2022 Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sakib Ahmed, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A. for the State/respondent.

None for the complainant though served.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 21/2019, the appellant has been sentenced and convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 376(2)(<) of IPC RI for 10 years and to pay fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 1 month

U/s 6 of POCSO Act RI for 10 years and to pay fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 1 month

(All sentences to run concurrently)

Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial court in the judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. She further submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution and prosecution has failed to prove the exact age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident. She also submits that there was love affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix and appellant is in jail for about more than 3 and half years 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 opposes 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 evidence available on record, detention period of 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.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2020 stands allowed.

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 9th November, 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