Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Kumar Uraon vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1973 of 2022
Suraj Kumar Uraon S/o Ramdhari Uraon, Aged About 30 Years, Village
Paterapali Khurd, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakradharnagar,
Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate, along with Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocate
22.02.2023 for appellant.
Mr. B. L. Sahu, P.L. for State.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, which is an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of
Rs.1,00,,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed
by Special Judge (SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Additional
Sessions Judge(FTC), Raigarh, District Raigar in Sessions Trial No. 29/2021.
Learned senior counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is in jail
since 11.11.2022 i.e. from the date of judgment and as such he has put in more
than 3 months of custody. He submits that during trial the appellant had got the
benefit of anticipatory bail by this High Court and that there was no misuse of the
same at any point of time. He submits that the plain reading of the statement of
prosecutrix PW-1 would clearly indicate that there was a consensual relationship
between the two for a considerable period of time spread over more than 4 years
and during this time the prosecutrix herself had voluntarily travelled with the
appellant at various places and also had physical relationship with him. He
further submits that it is only when the appellant was getting married to another
girl that the FIR was lodged on 17.11.2019. It is the further contention of learned
counsel for appellant that the prosecutrix herself in her cross-examination has
admitted the consensual relationship and having physical relationship with the
appellant without any coercion, pressure or threat by the appellant at any point of
time and that the prosecutrix being a major girl aged about 25 years, the
appellant deserves to be released on bail.
State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the bail application and submits
that the sentence is for a period of 10 years and it is only around 3 months time
that the appellant remains in custody, therefore he should not be released on bail
at this juncture. He further submits that it is a case where on the pretext of
marriage the appellant is said to have made physical relationship with the
prosecutrix on numerous occasions and on this ground also the appellant does
not deserve to be released on bail.
Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of
records, particularly taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix
PW-1 and also considering the fact that the appellant was on bail all along during
trial, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, a strong case for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant is made out.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 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 will be
released on bail on his furnishing 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 26 th April, 2023 and
thereafter on all such dates as would be given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the appeal. There shall also be stay so far as the payment of fine part
is concerned.
Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
JUDGE
Khatai
