Chattisgarh High Court
Shankardas Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 February, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 36 of 2025
Shankardas Manikpuri S/o Dukal Das Manikpuri Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward
No. 5, Shikaribaba Road, 256 Chowk Rajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District
Balod Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajhara,
District Balod Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
24.02.2025 Mr. Shikhar Sharma, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. for the State/Respondent.
Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the
victim.
Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate who is present in the
Court is requested to assist the Court as an amicus curiae.
Heard on admission as well as I.A. No. 01/2025, an
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant.
Admit.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 06.12.2024 passed in Special Sessions Case (POCSO)
No.64/2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO),
Balod, District Balod (C.G.), the appellant stands convicted and
sentenced as mentioned below :
Conviction Sentence In Default
Under Section 509 SI for 01-01 year In default of payment
of IPC (two times) and fine amount of of fine amount,
Rs.500-500/- additional
imprisonment for 06
months
Under Section RI for 03-03 years In default of payment
11(I)/12 of the and fine amount of of fine amount,
POCSO Act Rs.500-500/- additional
imprisonment for 06
(two times)
months
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended
that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in
the judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available
on record. He further contended that the appellant has very good
prima ficie case in his favour and hope to succeed to it. The
appellant was on bail during trial and the trial period and is
granted bail for the period of 06.01.2025 and he has not misused
the liberty granted by the trial Court, therefore, it is prayed that
may kindly be pleased to make an order to suspend the sentence
and release him on bail until disposal of the appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as
counsel appears as amicus curiae oppose the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail and supported the
impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and order
passed by the learned trial Court and other material available on
record with utmost circumspeciton.
Considering the totality of the facts, perused the statements
of the witnesses and other materials available on record. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case, without further
commenting on other merits of the case, I am of this opinion that
it will be proper to release the appellant on bail during the
pendency of this appeal.
Substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellant
shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and
he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 05.05.2025. 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.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
VASANT KUMAR
KUMAR 2025.02.28
11:13:14
+0530
Vasant
