Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-10666-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10666 of 2022
(RAJESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ) Dated : 18-12-2024 Shri Prashant Shrivas - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo - Government Advocate for State.
Per Justice Smt. Anuradha Shukla.
Heard on I.A.No.17526/2024, which is first application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant - Rajesh .
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC with no separate sentence, under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 376(3) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 6 r/w Section 5(L) of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and under Section 506 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2022 passed by Special Judge, Ananya Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012, Betul, District Betul, in S.C. No.70/2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offence. Appellant is in custody and the appeal would take considerable time to conclude. He is ready to Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 18-12-2024 17:02:49 2 CRA-10666-2022 furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that till disposal of this appeal, execution of jail sentence awarded to the appellant under the impugned judgment deserves to be suspended. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the trial Court concerned on 05.03.2025 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. List for final hearing in due course.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
NP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 18-12-2024
17:02:49