Manmohan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2854 MP

    1     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    CRA No.2713/2021
               Manmohan Singh vs. State of M.P.

              Heard Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated:30/06/2021

        Shri Sanjay Gupta, Counsel for the appellant.

        Shri Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi, Counsel for the respondent.

Heard on I.A.No.12207/2021, an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted for the following offences:

Section Act Imprisonment Detail of Imprisonment fine/if in lieu of fine deposited 7 Prevention 3 Years RI 5000/- 3 months RI of Corruption Act 13(1)(D) r/w Prevention 5 Years RI 7000/- 4 months RI Section of 13(2) Corruption Act

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the

complainant has turned hostile. Due explanation has been given

about the presence of phenolphthalein on the fingers of the appellant.

The Trial Court failed to see that nothing was pending before the

appellant to provide motive for demand of money. The hearing of

this appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time and the appellant is

ready and willing to appear before the Registry of this Court as and

when required.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.2713/2021 Manmohan Singh vs. State of M.P.

counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that it is true that the

complainant has turned hostile but in the light of judgment passed by

the Supreme Court in the case of Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi

Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390, an accused can be

convicted with the help of surrounding evidence. Even the evidence

of the police personnel can be relied upon. It is submitted that when

the fingers of the appellant were dipped in the solution, then the

colour had changed which clearly indicates that the appellant had

come in contact with the tainted currency notes. Further, it is

incorrect to say that nothing was pending before the appellant to

demand and accept the money.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is of the considered opinion that at present no case is

made out for grant of bail. Accordingly, I.A.No.12207/2021 is

hereby rejected. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to

revive the prayer after undergoing half of the jail sentence.

Ex Consequenti, I.A. Nos.12205/2021 and 15055/2021,

applications for urgent hearing, are hereby rejected.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.07.02 11:24:26 +05'30'