Mohammad Kosar Ansari vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 590 Chatt

                                                                                  NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              CRA No. 1472 of 2019

• Mohammad Kosar Ansari S/o Kamruddin Ansari Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
  - Mahavirganj, Police Chowki - Vijay Nagar, Police Station - Ramanujganj, District
  - Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.....(In Jail),

                                                                          ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Public Station Ramanujganj,
  District - Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh....(Respondent),

---- Respondent

30/01/2023 Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ali Asgar, Dy.AG for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.02/2021, which is third application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The first bail application of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.10.2020 with liberty to file afresh after one year. Thereafter, the second bail application was also dismissed as not pressed on 28.01.2021.

By the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, District Balrampur in Special Sessions Trial No. 37/2017 the accused/appellant stands convicted under Sections 363,366,and 506 IPC and Sections 5(m)/6 Of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s. 363 and 366; to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 506 and to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/Ss. 5(m)/6 POCSO with default stipulations.

Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that without going through the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has convicted the appellant. He submits that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and no proper explanation has been offered by the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has not been recovered from the present appellant and instead she was recovered from Chandan (PW-4) and in spite of that the trial court has convicted the appellant. It has been further submitted that the statement of the victim is also shaky therefore her statement is wrongly accepted by the court below. Lastly, it has been submitted that the appellant is in jail since 18.09.2017 meaning thereby he has already completed more than 6 years and looking to the entire facts and circumstances it is prayed that the appellant may be released on bail.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the arguments of the counsel for the appellant.

Heard counsel for the parties and had gone through the statement of the victim/prosecutrix.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the age of the victim and also the statement of the victim, in my considered view, it is not a case where the appellant should be released on bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

suguna