Chattisgarh High Court
Sudarshan Sahda vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1313 of 2021
Sudarshan Sahda S/o Shri Ramesh Sahda, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Mudpar, Police Station Chilhati, District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Chilhati, District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey & Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, counsel for appellant
23.02.2023 Mr. B. L. Sahu, P.L. for State.
Heard on I.A. No. 02/2022, which is an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 363, 366 of IPC & Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- u/s
363, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- u/s 366 of IPC and RI for 10 years with
fine of Rs.1,000/- u/s 6 of POCSO Act, with default stipulations, vide judgment
dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special
Court (POCSO), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon in Special Criminal
(POCSO) Case No.21/2019.
Upon notice being made, the father of victim is present before this Court.
On a query being put by this Court, the father of victim has submitted that he does
not have any objection if the appellant is released on bail.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since
15.09.2021 i.e. from the date of judgment. He submits that by now the appellant
has already remained in custody for a period of one year and 10 months.
Counsel for appellant submits that from plain reading of the statement of victim
PW-4 it would clearly reflect that she was aged more than 16 & ½ years when she
left her house of her own along with the appellant to different places and had
been staying with the appellant happily as husband and wife. It is the contention
of the counsel for appellant that from reading of the statement of victim it would
clearly reflect that there was a consensual relationship between the two and it is
that relationship which made the two elope from the house and started living
together as husband and wife. Under the given circumstances, counsel for
appellant prays that the appellant may be released on bail.
State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the bail application on the
ground that admittedly the victim was less than 18 years when she left her house
and therefore even if there was a consent, that is of no consequence and prayed
for rejection of the bail application.
Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of
records, particularly going through the statement of the prosecutrix, her age and
the age of appellant and also considering the fact that the appellant was on bail
during trial which he has not misused and by now the appellant has put in custody
around one year 10 months, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, a strong
case for allowing the bail application is made out.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 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 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 1 st May, 2023 and
thereafter on all such dates as would be given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the appeal.
Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
JUDGE
Khatai
