Madhya Pradesh High Court
Triveni @ Krishnanad Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5616 of 2022
(TRIVENI @ KRISHNANAND MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 11-11-2022
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/
State.
None for the respondent No.2.
Trial Court record has been received.
Heard on admission.
This appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A.No.12062/2022, an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant pending the appeal.
The appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 354-A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 354-D of IPC and has been sentenced to S.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 354 of IPC and has been sentenced to S.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 457 of IPC and has been sentenced to S.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, Section 3(1)(b)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act and has been sentenced to S.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and has been sentenced to S.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act and has been sentenced to S.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sidhi vide judgment dated 17.06.2022 passed in SPL Case No. 17/2017 (State 2 of MP Vs. Triveni @ Krishnanand Mishra).
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been wrongly convicted by learned trial Court as it has not properly appreciated and considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It has also not considered the defence put forth by the appellant. It is further submitted that there are lot of omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Appellant has fair chances to succeed in the appeal. There is no possibility of coming of this appeal for hearing in near future. Therefore, if the jail sentence is not suspended, the purpose of filing this appeal would become futile.
On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.
Considering the short nature of sentence and the fact that there is no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future, I deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Consequently, I.A.No.12062/2022 is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of appellant- Triveni @ Krishnanand Mishra is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited). It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court on 27.01.2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy Certified copy as per rules.
3(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2022.11.12 11:35:16 +05'30'