Chattisgarh High Court
Monu Prajapati vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 68 of 2025
1 - Monu Prajapati S/o Ram Awatar Prajapati Aged About 22 Years
R/o Chirpura Road, Ambah Gali No. 2, District Muraina, M.P., At
Present Ravishanakar Shukl Nagar, Korba, House No. M I G- I I, 80,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Ajak,
Korba, District- Korba, C.G.
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
06/05/2025 Heard Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State on the application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail (I.A. No. 02/2025).
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2024 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTSC POCSO,
Korba,CG in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 52/2021,
the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 363 IPC To undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for five years
and payment of fine of Rs.
2,000/-, in default fo payment
of fine to further undergo RI for
3 months
U/s. 366 IPC To undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for seven years
and payment of fine of Rs.
3,000/-, in default fo payment
of fine to further undergo RI for
3 months
U/s. 376(2)(n) IPC The quantum of punishment
provided under this Section is
equivalent to the punishment
for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO
Act.
U/s. 376(3) IPC The quantum of punishment
under this Section is
equivalent to the punishment
for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO
Act
SUGUNA DUBEY U/s. Section 5(L) To undergo Rigorous
by SUGUNA
DUBEY Date:
readwith Section 6 of Imprisonment for 20 years and
2025.05.07
12:28:48 +0530
the POCSO Act, 2012 payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-,
in default fo payment of fine to
further undergo RI for 6
months
Prosecution case in brief is that on 17.02.2020, a
report was lodged by the mother of the victim alleging that
his minor daughter was found missing and on search being
made by the police, she was recovered from the custody of
the appellant from Aman Bhalla Brick Kiln, Pathankot.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the victim though stated to be a minor
girl but she has deposed that she knew the appellant and
was in contact with him. It is further stated that the victim has
developed physical relations with the appellant in a lodge
and thereafter, she eloped with the appellant to Pathankot
where the appellant forcefully developed physical relation
with the victim. After staying at Pathankot for three days, the
police came along with her father and she was recovered
from the custody of the appellant. She submits that as per
the statement recorded by the victim/girl (PW-2) it transpires
that she was a consenting party. He further argued that the
appellant is in jail since 26.02.2020 and further the fact that
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.
Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent
on the other hand opposes the prayer for grant of bail and
submits that the victim/girl is a minor, hence the consent is
immaterial.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused
the documents appended with the bail application.
Taking into account that it is a case of love relation
between the appellant and the victim and she appears to
have eloped voluntarily with him. As per the statement of
victim (PW-2), she has stated that she independently eloped
with the appellant and was staying with him. Thus, taking
into consideration the fact that the appellant is in jail since
26.02.2020 and that the 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.
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence awarded to
appellant by the learned trial Court is hereby suspended. He
shall be released on bail on executing bail bond to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 4.07.2025. 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.
Consequently, I.A. No.2/2025 is allowed.
It is made clear that the observations made
herienabove are only confined for disposal of aforesaid I.A.
and it shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of
this court on the merits of the matter.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
SUGUNA DUBEY
Date:
DUBEY 2025.05.07
12:28:09
+0530
