Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Tandan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 92 of 2023
Rahul Tandan S/o Chhannu Das Tandan, Aged About 19 Years, R/o In
Front Of Jamul Police Station, P.S.- Jamul, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, counsel for appellant.
22.02.2023 Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, P.L. for State.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2023, which is an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(n) of IPC & Section 5(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of
Rs.3,000 u/s 6 of POCSO Act, with default stipulation, vide judgment dated
30.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st Fast Track Court
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Durg, District Durg in Special Sessions Case
(POCSO) No. 155/2019.
As per the notice issued, the victim was connected virtually from the office
of DSLA, Durg. On a query being put by the Court, the victim has expressed her
no objection on grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since
30.12.2022 i.e. from the date of judgment. He submits that during trial the
appellant was on bail and that he has already remained in custody for a period of
around 4 months. Counsel for appellant, referring to the statement of the
prosecutrix PW-1 herself, submits that the appellant and the prosecutrix were
having a consensual romantic relationship for a considerable period of time and it
is only on the failure of marriage that the FIR was lodged and the appellant was
prosecuted. He further submits that the appellant is a student of Government
Polytechnic College, Durg and his examination is starting from next week and on
this ground also the appellant may be released on bail.
State counsel, however, opposes the bail application firstly on the ground
that the victim was a minor at the time of commission of offence and therefore the
consent of a minor would not be of much relevance. It is the contention of state
counsel that the sentence is for a period of 10 years and the appellant has
remained in custody only about 4 months time and therefore 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 the statement of the prosecutrix both in her examination-in-
chief as also in her cross-examination and also considering the age of the
appellant who is just 19 years and the victim being more than 17 years of age at
the time of commission of offence for the first time, 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 1 st May, 2023 and
thereafter on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of
the appeal.
Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy today.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
JUDGE
Khatai
