[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rupesh Sinha (Raju) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.03.16
10:29:07
+0530
1/8
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2005 of 2025
Rupesh Sinha (Raju) S/o Pooran Lal Sinha, Aged About 24 Years
R/o Rajapara Devbhog, Police Station- Devbhog, District Gariyaband
(C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Devbhog, Distt. Gariyabandh (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Order-Sheet
13.03.2026 By the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 11.09.2025, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court
(POCSO Act), Gariyaband (C.G.) in POCSO Case
No.42/2024, has convicted the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (for short,
'POCSO Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years and fine amount of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount,
additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the
State/respondent on the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant being I.A.
No.01.
Learned counsel for the convict/appellant has
argued that the learned Trial Judge acted in an
arbitrary manner and contrary to the relevant
provisions of law by wrongly holding that the age of the
victim is below 16 years. On the record, neither the
parents of the victim nor the Head Master of the school
could conclusively prove her age beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the finding of the Learned Trial Judge
is erroneous and contrary to settled principles of law.
It is further submitted that the Learned Trial
Judge misappreciated the evidence on record. The
material facts indicate that the relationship between the
appellant and the victim was consensual, which failed
to materialize into marriage due to family objections.
Thereafter, the victim and her parents allegedly
implicated the appellant in the offence. In addition, the
Trial Judge overlooked the decisions cited by the
appellant and, in light of recent judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is neither just nor proper to
hold the appellant guilty and convict him.
It is further submitted that the victim and her
parents have been declared hostile witnesses, and
their evidence does not properly support the alleged
conviction of the appellant. The victim's evidence is not
corroborated by her parents or by medical evidence.
Moreover, the prosecution has failed to produce any
material relating to the alleged obscene video or any
electronic evidence connecting the appellant to the
offence. None of the independent witnesses, including
the parents of the victim, testified about any such
video. Therefore, the findings of the Learned Trial
Court are erroneous and lack a proper evidentiary
basis.
It is respectfully submitted that the appellant's
mother, Hemlata Sinha, is suffering from Intramural
Uterine Fibroid and is scheduled for surgery on
23.03.2026 (Medical report Annexure A/1 Colly). The
appellant's presence is essential for her care and well-
being. The matter was earlier listed on 19.01.2026, and
no reply has been filed by the State. In these
circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the
appellant be granted temporary bail on humanitarian
grounds to attend to his ailing mother.
Lastly, though the Learned Trial Judge held that
the victim willingly went along with the appellant, he
relied on her minor age to negate consent. Learned
counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that, in
the circumstances, the nature of the relationship and
the consent-related aspects require proper
appreciation, which the Trial Judge failed to consider.
He further argued that the appeal is likely to take a
couple of years or more for final disposal; hence, he
prays that the appellant be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that notice was duly served upon
the victim vide order dated 19.01.2026, but it is
respectfully submitted that the service report has not
been received till date. He further submits that the case
involves a serious offence under the POCSO Act. The
State further submits that the gravity of the allegations
and the potential custodial consequences weigh
against granting temporary bail, and the appellant
should not be released at this stage.
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 and having perused the
record, it is evident that there are certain contradictions
and gaps in the evidence relied upon by the
prosecution. The age of the victim has not been
conclusively established on record, as neither her
parents nor the Head Master of the school could prove
it beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the relationship
between the appellant and the victim was reportedly
consensual, which could not materialize into marriage
due to family objections. The victim and her parents
have been declared hostile witnesses, and their
evidence does not reliably support the conviction.
Moreover, there is no corroborative medical or
electronic evidence connecting the appellant to the
alleged offence, and no independent witness has
provided any material to substantiate the prosecution's
case.
It is further noted that the appellant has been in
judicial custody since the date of conviction, and the
appeal against the conviction is likely to take a
considerable period for final disposal. In addition, the
appellant's mother, Hemlata Sinha, is suffering from
Intramural Uterine Fibroid and is scheduled to undergo
surgery on 23.03.2026. The appellant's presence is
essential during this critical period for her medical care
and emotional well-being, given her advanced age and
health complications.
In the circumstances, considering the prolonged
incarceration already undergone by the appellant, the
contradictions and gaps in the prosecution evidence,
and the medical urgency of his mother, we deem it
appropriate to allow the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the
appellant.
The substantive jail sentence awarded to the
appellant - Rupesh Sinha (Raju) by the learned Trial
Court is hereby suspended. The appellant shall be
released on bail on his executing a bail bond with two
sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court
for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
20.04.2026. 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 may be given to
him by the said Court, the interval being not less than
six months, till the final disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No.01 stands allowed.
Since the suspension of sentence has been
granted to the appellant, the application for temporary
bail being I.A. No. 02 also stands disposed of.
It is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of the
aforesaid interlocutory applications and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of
the case.
List this matter for final hearing.
Certified Copy as per Rules.
Sd/- Sd/- -
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Judge
Anu
