Chattisgarh High Court
Amar Prajapati vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 January, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BABLU
BABLU
RAJENDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2025.01.15
11:01:58
CRA No. 1137 of 2024
+0530
Amar Prajapati S/o Late Shri Chhattar Prajapati Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village- Jhingo, Thana- Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur, C.G.
...Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Surguja,
District- Surguja, C.G.
... Respondent
Order Sheet
14/01/2025 By the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 6.2.2023, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act),
Ambikapur in Special Criminal POCSO Case
No.12/2020 convicted the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 366, 366, 376(2)(n) and
376(3) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three
years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine
to further undergo RI for one month, RI for five years
and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to
further undergo RI for one month, RI for ten years and
fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further
undergo RI for two months and RI for twenty years and
fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further
undergo RI for three months.
Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel
Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent on the
instant application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail (I.A. No.2 of 2024).
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant that as per the prosecution case, the victim is
stated to be a minor girl aged about 14 years 09 months
and 24 days on the date of incident, but the same has
not been authentically proved by the prosecution as per
Dakhil-Kharij register. He would further submit that
Smt.Shyamwati Rajwade (PW-8), Headmistress of
Government School, Bartikra has been examined, but
the author of the entry made in dakhil kharij register has
not been examined. He submitted that it is the case o
elopement and not of taking away, enticing or abduction.
The appellant is in jail since 19.06.2018 and 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.
However, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel
Lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail
and submits that the appellant took the prosecutrix who
was aged about 14 years 09 months and 24 days on the
date of incident and the appellant has forcibly
committed sexual intercourse with her.
Notice issued to father of the prosecutrix has been
served to him, but he or his counsel did not appear to
oppose the bail application.
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, there appears to be no
authentic proof regarding age of the prosecutrix that she
was minor on the date of incident, considering the fact
that it is the case of elopement and not of taking away,
enticing or abduction, the appellant is in jail since
19.06.2018 and 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.
Accordingly, bail application (I.A.No.2/2024) is
allowed and the substantive jail sentence awarded to
the appellant by the learned trial Court is hereby
suspended. He shall be released on bail on his
executing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on
28.02.2025. 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
C.C. as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
