Chattisgarh High Court
X vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 January, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1003 of 2024
X S/o Y Aged About 31 Years R/o As Mentioned In F.I.R., P.S.
Tikrapara, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tikrapara, District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
Order Sheet
ROHIT
KUMAR 14/01/2025 Heard Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the
CHANDRA
appellant. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel
Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent and Ms.
Harshika Pandey holding brief of Mr. Pushkar Sinha,
learned counsel, appearing for the complainant on I.A.
No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.04.2024, the Additional
Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court,
"POCSO", Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Special
Criminal Case, "POCSO" No.190/2019 has convicted
and sentenced the appellant with a direction to run all
the sentences concurrently in the following manner :
CONVICTION SENTENCE
U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 07 years & fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of
fine additional RI for 2 months.
U/s 366 of IPC R.I. for 07 years & fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of
fine additional RI for 2 months.
U/s 376(2)(N) of IPC Sentence awarded in Section 6
of POCSO Act
U/s 6 of the POCSO Imprisonment for life (till
Act remaining part of natural life) and
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default
of payment of fine, additional RI
for 6 months.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the
appellant that the victim, who was aged about 17 years
and 1 month at the time incident, as per the class 10 th
Marksheet, eloped with the appellant and has travelled
the appellant at various places and had established
physical relationship, but has never raised any alarm
and it was suspected by the Doctor that she was
pregnant. He further stated that as per the FSL report,
though human sperms were found on the
undergarments of the victim as well as the appellant, but
no human sperm was found in the vaginal slide of the
victim. Thus, it is a case of elopement and not of taking
away, enticing or abduction. He also submits that the
victim was a consenting party, the appellant has no
criminal antecedent, he was on bail during the trial and
he is in jail since 16.04.2024 i.e. from the date of
passing of the impugned judgment and further, the
appeal is likely to take a couple of years or even more in
its final disposal, hence he prays that the appellant be
enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel as well
as learned counsel appearing for the complainant
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted by that the
victim is minor girl aged about 17 years 01 month and
the FSL report of victim is positive.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the documents appended with the bail
application.
Considering the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties, also considering the
evidence available on record and the fact that the victim
eloped with the appellant and she had travelled with the
appellant at various places and had established
physical relationship but has never raised any alarm,
she was a consenting party and the appellant is in jail
since 16.04.2024 and further hearing of this appeal
would take prolonged period of time, we deem it
appropriate to allow the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the
appellant.
Consequently, IA No. 1 of 2024 is allowed.
The substantive jail sentence awarded to
appellant by the learned trial Court is hereby
suspended. The appellant - "X" shall be released on
bail on his executing bail bond with one surety to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on
16.04.2025. He shall thereafter appear before the
concerned 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, interval being not less than 6 months, till
final disposal of this appeal.
It is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are only confined for disposal of aforesaid
IA filed in this appeal and it shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the
matter.
List this matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
