Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Bhilala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-6114-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6114 of 2025
(RAMESH BHILALA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 18-08-2025
Ms.Monica Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.13537/2025, an application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. on behalf of sole appellant - Ramesh Bhilala for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
2. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 16.05.2025 passed
by Third Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012,
District Sheopur (M.P.) in ST No.19/2024; whereby, present appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Section Imprisonment Fine Default in lieu
363 of IPC 2 years R.I. 5,000/- 2 months
5(L)/(6) of POCSO Act 20 years R.I. 10,000/- 4 months
3 . It is the submission of counsel for present appellant that the trial
Court erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to appellant. Present
appellant has suffered seven months of incarceration as pre and post trial
confinement. It is further submitted that at the time of incident, the
prosecutrix was at the cusp of attaining majority because in FIR father of
prosecutrix refers the fact that she is aged 17 years and six months. In her
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as court statement, she
submits that she left her maternal home on her own volition and lived with
appellant for 22 days at Morbi (Gujarat). It is highly surprising that she lived
2 CRA-6114-2025
with appellant for 22 days without raising any alarm. It is a case of consent
because both prosecutrix and appellant shared emotional and physical
proximity with consent. Although appellant is relative of prosecutrix but
looking to the nature of evidence surfaced, he is falsely implicated. Samples
for DNA were taken from prosecutrix after nine days of recovery. This
renders the samples vulnerable. Final hearing of the appeal shall take some
time and he has a good case on merits. He undertakes to abide by all terms
and conditions as imposed by this Court. On such grounds, learned counsel
for the appellant prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to present
appellant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prayed for rejection of application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
6. Considering the submissions advanced, but without commenting on
the merits of the case, I.A.No.13537/2025 filed on behalf of sole appellant -
Ramesh Bhilala stands allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of
present appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the present
appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the factum
of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing personal bond in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand Only) with one solvent surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. The
appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
26.11.2025 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
7. It is submitted that prosecutrix is already married, therefore, it is
3 CRA-6114-2025
directed that present appellant shall not move in the vicinity of her maternal
home or matrimonial home, otherwise, benefit of bail given today by way of
suspension of sentence shall be withdrawn immediately.
8. Present appellant shall not be a source of embarrassment and
harassment to the complainant/victim side in any manner and and shall not
try to contact the prosecutrix through electronic mode or any other mode ;
otherwise, benefit of bail given today by way of suspension of sentence shall
be withdrawn immediately.
9. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
10. Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding
the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
11. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information and necessary compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
