Chattisgarh High Court
Goverdhan Kotangale vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 September, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet,
CRA No. 1373 of 2021
Goverdhan Kotangale, son of Rajkumar Kotangale, aged about 18 years, resident
of village Mundgaon, P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dongargarh
District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.,
---- Respondent
29.09.2022 Ms. Vijay Laxmi Soni, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, P.L. for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A.No. 01/2021, an application filed under Section 389 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
By virtue of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
16.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh
(C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.07/2019, the appellant stands convicted and
sentenced in the following manner :-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 376 IPC R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.2,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, further
R.I. for three months
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in connection with the said crime. It is
contended further that the prosecutrix was found to be major at the time of
commission of alleged offence and in view of her statement, particularly, paras 7
to 9, it is evident that she was also one of the consenting parties, however,
without considering the said material piece of evidence in its proper perspective,
the learned Court below has erred in holding the appellant guilty for the said
offence. Further contention of her is that since the appellant was in jail for the
period commencing with effect from 01.04.2019 upto 18.01.2021 and thereafter
from the date of pronouncement of the judgment under appeal till date and, thus
he has served more than two years and ten months out of the maximum jail
sentence as awarded to him, and therefore, if the remaining jail sentence is
allowed to continue, the very purpose of filing this appeal would be frustrated.
She, thus prays for releasing the appellant on bail during the pendency of this
appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
opposed the said application for grant of bail.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
entire record carefully.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, considering
further that the appellant was in jail for the period commencing with effect from
01.04.2019 upto 18.01.2021 and thereafter from the date of pronouncement of
the judgment under appeal till date, as such, he has served more than two years
and ten months out of ten years maximum jail sentence awarded to him and, by
considering further that hearing of this appeal will take some more time, I am,
therefore, inclined to allow this application.
Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2021 is allowed and it is directed that the
substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended
during pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety in the like sum to
the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 23.11.2022. 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 on all such subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till
disposal of this appeal.
In view of above, I.A.No.01/2021 stands disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in its turn.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Anjani
