Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Palatniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-4440-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-4440-2021
(SANTOSH PALATNIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 23-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Rajmani Singroul, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ravindra Rajput, P.L. for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.13787/2021 an application (first) for suspension
of execution of sentence awarded to the appellant and grant of bail.
Vide judgment dated 30.06.2021 in Special Case No. 62/2019 passed
by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jabalpur Distt.-Jabalpur, M.P., the
appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of
IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, Section 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1
year with a fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation in
each.
As per prosecution case, on dated 03.02.2019, prosecutrix was
going to Kirana shop, at that time, appellant-accused reached there and
caught hand of the prosecutrix and pressed her mouth. Thereafter,
appellant-accused took her near a pond. She cried then one Sunil and
other villagers reached there. They caught appellant-accused but he ran
away from the spot.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Trial Court
ha s committed grave error to convict and sentence to the appellant-
Signature Not Verified
accused. Learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.09.24 17:14:32 IST
2 CRA-4440-2021
perspective way. Prosecutrix PW-1 admitted this fact that she knew the
appellant-accused but appellant-accused is not named in FIR. There are
material contradiction and omission in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. Nilesh PW-5 deposed before the trial Court that prosecutrix
took the mobile of appellant-accused. She was playing a game in that
mobile. When appellant-accused demanded his mobile then some dispute
arose between both the parties so it appears that the appellant-accused
has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned trial Court already
suspended the execution of jail sentence of the appellant and granted him
bail. This appeal is of year 2021. It is the time of COVID-19 due to which
final hearing of this appeal will take time. There is every possibility to succeed
in this appeal. There is no likelihood of his absconding and tampering with the
evidence. Under the circumstances, if the execution of sentence of the
appellant is not suspended, his right to file appeal will be futile. Hence, prayer
is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the present
appellant-accused.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State
opposes the submission of appellant's counsel and prays for rejection of
application.
Heard and perused the record.
Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and evidence of the case it appears that learned trial Court
already suspended the execution of jail sentence of the appellant and
granted him bail, this appeal is of year 2021, it is the time of pandemic
COVID-19 due to which final hearing of this appeal will take time but
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the said I.A. is
allowed.
It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already
Signature Not Verified
SAN
deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant-Santosh
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.09.24 17:14:32 IST
3 CRA-4440-2021
Palatniya shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.
50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the
same like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance
before the learned trial court on 29.11.2021 and thereafter on all other
such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.
In case, the appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the trial
court then the said court shall be free to issue and execute warrant of
arrest without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of
this Court is kept informed.
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 by the jail doctor before his release.
2 . The appellant 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 is suffering from 'Corona Virus
disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by
placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
List this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.09.24 17:14:32 IST
