Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3022 MP

                                     1
  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                        Cr. A. No.4829 of 2020
                       Jagdish Vs. State of M.P.

Indore, Dated:- 06/07/2021

       Heard through video conferencing.

       Shri Deepak Rawal, Counsel for the appellant - Jagdish S/o

Hariram Meghwal.

       Shri Chetan Jain, Counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6317/2021, first application under Section 389

(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail

sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.

The present appellant has been convicted and sentenced by I

Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District - Neemuch (MP) in

Special Case No.03/2017 vide judgment dated 15.05.2019, as under: -

         Conviction                        Sentence
   Section       Act            RI        Fine     Imprisonment in
                                         amount      lieu of fine
   363       IPC, 1860    03 years Rs.300/-        5 months RI
   506 (2)   IPC 1860     01 year    Rs.200/-      7 months RI
   4        POCSO        08 years Rs.500/-      3 months RI

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that out of 8 years of

imprisonment, he has already completed four years and four months

incarceration and the final disposal of the appeal is likely to take

sufficient long time. It is further submitted that as per the MLC of the

prosecutrix the hymen was ruptured but healed and she also had not

suffered any internal injury.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.4829 of 2020 Jagdish Vs. State of M.P.

Counsel has also submitted that in para 14 of her cross-

examination she has admitted that the mother and father of the

appellant were present in the next door, however, they also did not

stop their son, which conduct appears unnatural and thus, the

possibility of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out.

Counsel has further submitted that the FSL report is also negative.

Therefore, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has

opposed the prayer.

Having considered rival submissions and on perusal of the

record, this Court finds force with the contentions raised by Counsel

for the appellant to allow the application.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the

case, IA No.6317/2021 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing

a personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his / her regular appearance

before concerned trial Court, the execution of the custodial part of

the sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended,

till the final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.4829 of 2020 Jagdish Vs. State of M.P.

presence before the concerned trial Court on 15.09.2021 and on all

such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the concerned Court in this

regard.

C. c. as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANDEY Date: 2021.07.06 18:09:09 +05'30'