Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1518 Chatt

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order Sheet

                               CRA No. 72 of 2021

• Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar Ramteke, S/o Pyarelal, Aged about 48
  years, Occupation- Government Servant, R/o- Village Haldi, P.S.-
  Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.).

                                                                  ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station- Daundilohara, District- Balod
  (C.G.).

                                                              ---- Respondent

02.08.2021 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L. for the State/Respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment date 04.12.2020 passed in

Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 90/2017 by the learned

Sessions Judge, In-charge F.T.C., District- Balod (C.G.) the

appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

Conviction Sentence In Default U/s 354 of the IPC RI for 05 years and In default of payment of fine amount of fine amount additional Rs.2,000/-. RI for 02 months.

U/s 354 of the IPC RI for 05 years and In default of payment of fine amount of fine amount additional Rs.2,000/-. RI for 02 months.

U/s 7/8 of the RI for 05 years and In default of payment of POCSO Act, 2012 fine amount of fine amount additional Rs.2,000/-. RI for 02 months.

U/s 7/8 of the RI for 05 years and In default of payment of POCSO Act, 2012 fine amount of fine amount additional Rs.2,000/-. RI for 02 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court in the judgment

without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. He

submits that the statements of both the victim girls (PW-01 & PW-

02) and PW-03 (mother of PW-02) is suspicious. On perusal of the

statements of PW-03 it also appears that there was a previous

enmity between mother-in-law of PW-03 and sister of the

appellant, that is why, the appellant has been falsely implicated in

this present case, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not

sustainable. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since

04.12.2020. Hence, it is prayed that his application be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has

opposed the bail application and submissions made in this respect.

Heard both the parties.

I have perused the judgment as well as statements of witnesses and other evidence adduced by the prosecution before

the Trial Court. After perusal of the statements of both the victim

girls (PW-01 & PW-02) and mother of the one victim girl (PW-03), I

am of this opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the

appellant during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021 is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Vasant