Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deshraj Singh vs Kendriya Anvekshan Beuro on 30 September, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2481 of 2021
(DESHRAJ SINGH Vs KENDRIYA ANVEKSHAN BEURO)
Dated : 30-09-2022
Shri Abhishek Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Susheel Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI.
Hear d on I.A. No. 11592/2022, seventh repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the sole appellant.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27/03/2021 passed by Special Judge, CBI & IVth Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior (M.P.) in S.T. No. 383/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.100/-, under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 467 r/w section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 468 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examinations Act and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, the solver namely Dileep Kumar Pathak had impersonated the appellant and had appeared in the M.P. Police Constable Recruitment Examination conducted in the year 2012, who was arrested in the examination hall. Thereafter, the appellant was apprehended and a criminal case has been registered against him.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no criminal 2 antecedents. The learned Trial Judge has not taken into consideration the relevant piece of evidence placed on record. The impugned judgment is based on presumptions and assumptions. Even otherwise, the appellant had undergone 19 months' jail incarceration. Further jail incarceration in the company of hardened criminals shall seriously jeopardize his life and family. He belongs to a poor family. The appeal is of the year 2021 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that execution of the jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, Shri Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI opposed the application and supported the impugned judgment with submission that the solver namely Dileep Kumar Pathak had impersonated the appellant and had appeared in M.P. Police Constable Recruitment Examination conducted in the year 2012, who was arrested in the examination hall, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore, no exception can be taken in the matter.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, regard being had to the fact that alleged act of impersonification is of the year 2012 and the impugned judgment has been passed in the year 2021 at a distance of more than 9 years. The appellant is a young boy. At this stage, if appellant is made to suffer further jail incarceration then the same will jeopardized his future. The appeal is of the year 2021 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future. This Court is of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly, directed that execution order of jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on 3 bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three Lakhs Only) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/12/2022, and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard, with following further conditions:
(i) Appellant will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);
(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing appellant, his medical examination be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any further test required be undertaken immediately.
(iii) Appellant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station on 2nd and 4th Saturday every month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon;
(iv) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE JUDGE (Dubey) Digitally signed by SUNEEL DUBEY SUNEEL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=157244b0239a6fd662b29b00a11fc66a 5e160f585aa7a92425f380d476b32818, DUBEY pseudonym=046B231C591E29491F36ABD156E BF3A713937186, serialNumber=4009CAE962958E019ADDF04E8 7EFD5C07FA5D0C38532D550F61B55401A275B 8C, cn=SUNEEL DUBEY Date: 2022.09.30 19:03:45 -07'00'