Chattisgarh High Court
Abhay Gendle vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1044 of 2022
Abhay Gendle S/o Sanat Gendle, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village
Dhaurabhata, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
---Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Hirri,
District Bilaspur (C.G.).
---Respondent
Division Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
24.01.2023 Mr. C.K Kesharwani and Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. Ashish Tiwari, G.A. for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ First Fast
Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Sessions
Case No. 39/2021, the appellant has been convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 5(L)/6 of R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.500, in
POCSO Act, 2012 default of payment of fine 3 years
additional R.I.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case there is
inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the report. He submits that
the victim being minor on the date of incident has not been established.
He further submits that the Ex. P-14C (Dakhil Khariz Register) is a
forged document, the victim was major at the time of incident and that
she was a consenting party. He further submits that medical report does
not support the prosecution case. He also submits that neither specific
date of birth of the victim was proved by the prosecution nor any
documentary evidence was given by mother of the victim regarding her
age. The appellant was on bail during the trial and did not misuse the
liberty granted to him and after passing of the impugned judgment he is
in jail. The final disposal of the appeal is likely to take time and,
therefore, application may be allowed and appellant may be released on
bail.
On the other hand, opposing the bail application, learned State
Counsel submits that it is the appellant, who has committed rape with the
victim and if statement of Dr. Manjulata Verma (PW-14), is taken into
consideration, it is clear that the victim was carrying pregnancy of 3
months, as such, it is not a case wherein the appellant should be
enlarged on bail.
Victim alongwith her mother had appeared before this Court on
17/01/2023 and stated no objection to release the appellant on bail
during pendency of appeal.
We have perused the material available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegation against the appellant, further considering the fact that the
victim PW-02 has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case
at all, there is no supporting medical evidence and FSL report connecting
the appellant with the offence in question, the appellant was on bail
during trial vide order dated 25/08/2021 and did not misuse the liberty
which was given to him, no objection has been stated by the victim as
well as her mother to release the appellant on bail and that disposal of
this appeal is likely to take time, without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the present appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is allowed.
The substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant is
suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he is directed to be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- along with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of
the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 24h of 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.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Chandrakant
