Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganesh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2019
1 CRR-4628-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-4628-2019
(GANESH RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Indore, Dated : 27-09-2019
Shri Manish Manana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ambar Pare, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Issue notice.
Learned State's counsel takes notice, hence, no further notice is required.
Further, heard on I.A. No.7695/2019; which is an application under section 397 Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and bail filed on behalf of petitioner.
This Criminal Revision under sections 397 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/09/2019 passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.86/2019 modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/05/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur, District Ujjain in Criminal Case No.1146./2010 whereby the accused/petitioner has been convicted under section 407 IPC instead 411 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- instead two years as mentioned in the impugned judgment with default stipulation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated in the offence. In fact, the main accused have been acquitted from the offence but the petitioner has been convicted. Hence, there is apparent error in the judgments impugned. The petitioner is in jail. The fine amount has already been deposited. He is sole bread earner of the family and the family is on the verge of starvation due to his jail incarceration. His further incarceration shall jeopardize life of the family members. The final hearing of this petition shall take time. Hence, the present appellant may be enlarged on bail, on such terms and conditions this Hon'ble Digitally signed by M V R BALAJI SARMA Date: 27/09/2019 17:29:38 2 CRR-4628-2019 Court deems fit and proper.. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays that execution of the jail sentence of the petitioner may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.
In the opinion of this Court, considering the nature of allegation and facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A., is hereby allowed and it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of the petitioner alone shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to deposit of fine amount (if not already paid) for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2019 and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.
I.A.closed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE b/-
Digitally signed by M V R BALAJI SARMA Date: 27/09/2019 17:29:38