High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/439/2017dismissed

Dr. Deepak Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-01-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 439 of 2017 Dr. Deepak Sahu S/o Late Bhadu Ram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dongardula, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Present R/o Primary Health Centre, Dugli, Dhamtari, Post Office & Police Station Durgli, Tahsil & District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Dugli, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer S.B.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 30/01/2017 Heard.

1. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.18 of 2016 registered in Police Station- Dugli, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence under Section 354 (A) of IPC and Section 8, 9(m) & 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Case of the prosecution is that the applicant posted as the doctor of Government Dispensary used to molest minor tribal girls.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations are false and exaggerated. He submits that the applicant has been involved in the allegations all of a sudden by number of girls at the instance of some vested interest. It is next submitted that he has already remained in jail for about 3 months and as the charge-sheet has filed, he is not likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The next submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the hospital records, the name of girls are not mentioned as outdoor patients. Therefore, it is a case of false

-2implication.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits that as many as 7 girls have made statement against the applicant of he subjecting them to molestation while providing treatment in the hospital.

5. Considering the aforesaid material, I am not inclined to grant bail. At this stage, the application is rejected. In case, trial is not concluded within the period of four months, the applicant may revive this application. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha