Chattisgarh High Court
Chandrakar Kothari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2021
1. Chandrakar Kothari, S/o Saheb Das Kothari, aged about 19 years, R/o Omsai Ram Society,
Nag Mandir, Ward No.14, Naveen Nagar, Pardi, Police Station Kalmana, District Nagpur
(Maharastra).
2. Prakash Kothari, S/o Saheb Das Kothari, aged about 23 years, R/o Omsai Ram Society,
Nag Mandir, Ward No.14, Naveen Nagar, Pardi, Police Station Kalmana, District Nagpur
(Maharastra).
3. Meena Bai Kothari, W/o Saheb Das Kothari, aged about 40 years, R/o Omsai Ram Society,
Nag Mandir, Ward No.14, Naveen Nagar, Pardi, Police Station Kalmana, District Nagpur
(Maharastra).
... Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through: Station House Officer, Police Station Gaindatola,
Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondent
15/02/2023 Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate, for Appellants.
Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for Respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, which is an application seeking for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the Appellants.
The Appellant No.1 Chandrakar Kothari stands convicted under Sections 363 &
366 of IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/- on each court and under
Section 376(2)(n) of IPC to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000, under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000 and
further under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act to undergo R.I. for 1
year and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months respectively,
as ordered on 25.10.2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C.), Rajnandgaon, in
Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.45/2019.
Similarly, vide the aforesaid Order dated 25.10.2021, the Appellant No.2 Prakash
Kothari and Appellant No.3 Meena Bai Kothari both also stand convicted under Section
376(2)(n) of IPC to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000, under Section 6 read
with Section 17 of the POCSO Act to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000 and
further under Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act to undergo R.I. for 1
year and in default payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months respectively.
On the previous date of hearing, the Victim had appeared before the Court
through DLSA and made a statement that one of the co-accused Khuman Kaushik is
still misbehaving with her. However, on enquiry, as ordered by this Court, the Station
House Officer of Police Station Gaindatola, District Rajnandgaon has submitted a report
where the Victim has made a statement that the Appellants or the co-accused have
never misbehaved with her after they were initially arrested in the year 2019.
Learned Counsel for Appellants submits that the Appellants were on bail during
the trial and subsequent to the Judgment passed by the Trial Court they have also
remained in custody for around 15 months. Further, it is a case where the statement of
the Victim would clearly reflect that she was in close consensual relationship with
Appellant No.1 Chandrakar Kothari who was himself aged about 19 years and the
Victim was aged more than 17 years of age. Therefore, in the given factual matrix, the
Appellants may be released on bail during the pendency of the Appeal.
Learned Counsel for Appellants further submits that the co-accused Khuman
Kaushik has already been released on bail by this Court vide Order dated 16.11.2021
passed in Criminal Appeal No.1395/2021.
Learned State Counsel however opposing the bail application submits that it is a
case where the Appellants have been found guilty of being committed serious offences
punishable under the IPC, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and
therefore it would not be proper for this Court to release the Appellants so early within
just around 15 months of custody period.
Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record,
particularly taking note of the fact that the co-accused Khuman Kaushik has already
been released on bail, the age of the Appellant No.1 being 19 years and the age of
Victim around 17 years, the statement of the Victim where prima facie it appears to be a
consensual relationship that they both had and also the period of custody undergone by
the Appellants, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the Appellants
should be released on bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. No.1/2021 is allowed.
It is ordered that in case each of the Appellants furnishes a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned Trial Court then the execution of the substantive jail sentences awarded to
them shall remain suspended during pendency of the Appeal and they shall be released
on bail for their appearance before the concerned Trial Court on 10.4.2023 and
thereafter they shall continue to appear before the Trial Court on all such subsequent
dates as are given to them by the Trial Court in this regard, till disposal of the present
Appeal.
List this Appeal for final hearing in due course. Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
JUDGE
sharad
