Chattisgarh High Court
Yogesh Kumar Vishvakarma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1093 of 2022
Yogesh Kumar Vishvakarma S/o Shri Shundar Lal Vishvakarma Aged
About 20 Years R/o Village Kopara, Bhatapara, Pairi Nagar P.S. Panduka
Distt. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Gariyaband
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
22/02/2023 Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate for the State.
Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate for the complainant.
Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application under Section 389
of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The present appellant stands convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.300 and default
stipulation for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.500 and default stipulation
for the offence under Section 366 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000 and default stipulation for the
offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000 with default stipulation for the
offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The present appellant is in jail since 30.06.2022 i.e. the date of
the judgment. During trial the appellant was on bail and he has not
misused the liberty granted to him.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that from the
plain reading of the statement of PW-1 recorded during the course of
the investigation as also recorded before the trial Court would clearly
reflect that the appellant and the victim were having a consensual
romantic relationship and that there was never any coercion or force
used by the appellant either for abduction or for the purpose of
having physical relationship, nor was there any sort of threat given
by the present appellant. He further submits that since the appeal is
of the year 2022, there is no likelihood of an early final disposal of
the appeal and therefore the appellant as of now may be released on
bail. He further submits that the victim upon notice has not opposed
the bail application.
The State counsel on the other hand opposing the bail
application submits that all said and done the age of the victim was
that of a minor and under the circumstances the consent of the minor
is of no relevance, so far as the consensual relationship is
concerned, and the appellant knew very well that the victim was a
minor and thus opposed the bail application.
Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on
perusal of records particularly taking note of the fact that the
appellant is aged around 20 years and the victim was at the relevant
point of time aged more than 16 years of age. In addition, the
statement of the prosecutrix would also reveal that the appellant and
the prosecutrix were well known each other and they had been
cordial talking terms for a very long time. Given the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, prima facie a strong case for allowing the
bail application made out. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 stands 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 in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The appellant is directed to
appear before the trial Court on 27th of April, 2023 and all further
dates to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the appeal.
List this case in due course.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
JUDGE
Ved
