Chattisgarh High Court
Subham Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1032 of 2022
• Subham Prasad S/o Dropat Prasad Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Near
Anna Kirana Shop, Vrinda Nagar, Bhilai, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant.
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station -
Vaishali Nagar, District - Durg, ---- Respondent
6-2-2023 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Ishwari Dhritlahre, PL for the State.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2022 which is an application filed
under Section 389 CrPC for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 17-62022 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth FTC, Durg,
District Durg in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No. 75 of
2020 the appellant stands convicted under Section 10 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional
R.I. for one month.
In view of earlier direction passed by this court, victim
appeared before this court through Video Conferencing on
27-7-2022 and has raised objection about releasing the
appellant on bail and her statement is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
minimum sentence awarded to the appellant is five years
whereas the appellant has already completed more than one
year, 11 months and 21 days of jail sentence. He would
further submit that the trial court has recorded a finding in
para 39 of its judgment that the appellant has been acquited
from charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and
Section 377 of the IPC, still he has been convicted under
Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for aggravating sexual
assault. He would further submit that at the most the
appelalnt can be convicted under Section 354 of IPC. He
would further submit hat the appeal is of 2022 and hearing of
the appeal will likely to take some time for its disposal,
therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court be
suspended and the appellant be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the
bail application would submit that the trial court, after
appreciating the evidence has rightly convicted the
appellant, therefore, the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant deserves to be
rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record of the trial court.
Considering the fact that the trial court has recorded a
finding in para 39 of its judgment that the appellant has been
acquitted from charges under Sections 6 of POCSO Act and
Section 377 of IPC but he has been convicted under Section
10 of the Act, 2012 without recording any finding, the fact
that the appellant has already undergone the jail sentence
more than one year, 11 months and 21 days, the appeal is
of the year 2022 and hearing of the appeal will likely to take
some time for its disposal, therefore, I am inclined to allow
this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed and 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 sum of Rs.25,000/- with two
sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned
trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 15th March, 2023. 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 there
on all such subsequent dates as are given to him by the
said Court till the disposal of this appeal.
It is made clear that the date given by the trial court for
appearance of the accused appellant should not have
interval of more than 90 days from the previous date.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
