Chattisgarh High Court
Lalaram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 June, 2025
1/3
Digitally signed
by AVANISH
KUMAR
PATHAK
Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.06.05
15:57:49 +0530
CRA No. 1046 of 2025
1 - Lalaram Sahu S/o Rajaram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Eramshahi, Choki-
Maro, Police Station- Nandghat, District- Bemetara (C.G.), Present R/o P H C
Maro, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Bemetara, District-
Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondent
Order Sheet
05/06/2025 Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Adv. for the appellant.
Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Adv. for the
State/respondent.
Mr. Anchal Matre, Adv. for the complainant.
Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 23-5-2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989] (hereinafter referred to as 'SCST Act'),
Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara in Special Sessions Case No.
7/2023, appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under :-
S.No Conviction Sentence Fine sen- In default
tence of payment
of fine,
1. 294, IPC SI for one Rs. 500/- SI for 15
month days
2. 186/34, IPC SI for one Rs. 500/- SI for 15
month days
3. 3(1)(r) of SC RI for 4 Rs. 2,000/- SI for 3
ST Act years months.
4 3(1)(s) of SC RI for 4 Rs. 2,000/- SI for 3
ST Act years. months.
All the jail sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits
that, the complainant, who is a Rural Health Medical
Assistant, Primary Health Centre, Maro, was not performing
her duties during the period of Covid 19, therefore, villagers
gathered in order to submit their grievance, but the
complainant lodged false report against the appellant and
other co-accused persons for the offences, which are not at all
attracted in the instant case. It is submitted that, the appellant
was granted anticipatory bail and he never misused the liberty
granted to him. Therefore, the application for suspension of
sentence may be allowed and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that, from perusal the FIR itself, it is apparent that, the
complainant has been humiliated in public view by naming her
caste, as such, the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
the SCST Act is made out. Therefore, the application may be
rejected.
Learned counsel for the complainant supported the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the State.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused material available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
further considering the contents of the FIR and statement of
the complainant recorded before the trial Court, I.A. No.
1/2025 is allowed.
The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the
appellant by the learned Special Judge concerned is hereby
suspended. He shall be released on bail his executing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23-6-
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, till final disposal of this
appeal.
List this matter for final hearing in due course.
I.A. 2/2025 for urgent hearing and I.A. No. 3/2025 for
hearing during summer vacation stand disposed of
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Pathak
