Ranjeet Joshi @ Chitta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1878 MP

                                                                          1                               CRA-7041-2018
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                          CRA-7041-2018
                                               (RANJEET JOSHI @ CHITTA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       26
                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 07-05-2021
                                             Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                             Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                             Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

Record of the Court below is available.

Heard on the question of admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on I.A. No.13676/2020, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No. 2-Govind.

The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellants/accused against judgment dated 03.07.2018 passed by learned Session Judge, Raisen, in S.T.No.-310/2017, by which the appellant No.2 has been convicted for offence under Sections 392 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- Default stipulation has also been imposed by the trial Court.

T h e prosecution case in short is that on 12.07.2017, appellant No.2/accused Govind and other co-accused persons stopped the complainant- Deepak Singh Thakur (PW-5) and looted Rs. 49,524/- from the complainant. Thereafter, appellant No.2 and co-accused persons ran away from there.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that learned trial Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the appellant No.2/accused. It is admitted fact that at the time of incident, present appellant No.2/accused has no weapon and he did not use any weapon in the offence. Complainant- Deepak Singh Thakur (PW-5) did not depose any fact against the appellant No.2/accused that appellant No.2/accused has any weapon and used any Signature Not Verified SAN weapon in this incident. During the investigation, no looted property was

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.05.07 17:24:31 IST 2 CRA-7041-2018 seized from his possession. Except the evidence of Deepak Singh Thakur (PW-5), no other evidence is available against the appellant No.2/accused. There is material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witness. Appellant No.2/accused is in jail since 03.07.2018 till now. During trial, he remained in jail since 18.08.2017 to 03.07.2018. So, he has served almost half sentence. This appeal is of the year 2018. There are fair chances to succeed

in the appeal. It is a time of COVID-19 pandemic, due to this, final hearing of this appeal will take time. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant No.2 may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on bail.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the application.

After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that at the time of incident, neither appellant No.2/accused had weapon nor he used any weapon. Appellant No.2/accused is not previously convicted. Appellant No.2/accused is in jail since 03.07.2018 till now. During trial, he remained in jail since 18.08.2017 to 03.07.2018. So, he is served almost half sentence. This appeal is of the year 2018. It is a time of COVID-19 pandemic, due to this, final hearing of this appeal will take time, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 and grant bail to him.

Consequently, I.A. No.13676/2020 is allowed subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited. The custodial sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.

Appellant No.2-Govind be released from custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant No.2 shall appear and mark his presence before the trial Court on 19.07.2021 and shall continue to do so on all such future Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.05.07 17:24:31 IST 3 CRA-7041-2018 dates, as may be given by the trial Court in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.

I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellant No.2 shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-

1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the appellant No. 2 by the jail doctor before his release.

2 . The appellant No.2 shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3. If it is found that the appellant No.2 is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.

List the matter along with Cr.A. No. 6353/2018 for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

L.R.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.05.07 17:24:31 IST