Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohan Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 July, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 CRA-80-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-80-2020
(ROHAN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
23
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Malvi, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
The appeal is already admitted on 28.05.2020, although on the
same date, interim protection was granted to the appellant and he was
granted temporary bail considering the out-break of COVID-19 at the
relevant point of time.
Heard on I.A. No.2052/2020, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Vide impugned judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed in Sessions
Tr i al No.131/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal,
District-Bhopal, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B and
471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to
suffer R.I. for 5 years, 10 years and 7 years, respectively, with fine of
Rs.2,000/- each, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present
appellant remained in jail for a period of almost one year and by way
of interim protection, he is on bail. He further submits that in view of
the case of the prosecution, there is no allegation against the present
appellant regarding accepting the money from the complainant,
although the money has been paid to one Dr. R.N. Sharma, who is
absconding and has not been arrested so far. He submits that
Signature Not Verified
SAN
considering the allegations and finding given by the Court below, the
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2021.07.07 17:32:55 IST
2 CRA-80-2020
application deserves to be allowed.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the
application saying that as per the finding given by the Court below,
the appellant has been convicted for a period of ten years, therefore, at
this stage, the application deserves to be rejected.
Considering the aforesaid, without commenting anything on the
merits, I am of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellant
can be suspended and he can be enlarged on bail. Accordingly I.A.
No.2052/2020 is allowed.
I t is directed that on appellant's depositing the entire fine
amount, if not deposited, so also furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2021 and on
all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended and he
shall be released on bail, if not required to be detained in any other
case.
The jail authority is also directed to ensure that the appellant is
examined by the jail doctor to ascertain that he is not afflicted with
the COVID-19 virus. If the doctor suspects otherwise, the appellant
shall be referred to the appropriate hospital for further management as
per the protocol laid down by the State. In the event the jail doctor is
of the opinion that the appellant can be released, then he shall be
released.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2021.07.07 17:32:55 IST
3 CRA-80-2020
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2021.07.07 17:32:55 IST
