Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Patel vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 8 April, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 711 of 2022
(SURESH KUMAR PATEL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION)
Dated : 08-04-2022
Shri Abhishek Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Praveen Newskar, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondent/ CBI.
Heard on I.A. No. 1128/2022, first application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail filed on behalf of the sole appellant. This appeal has been
preferred against the judgment dated 31/12/2021 passed by Special Judge, CBI &
IVth Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior (M.P.) in S.C. CBI No. 22/2017,
whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 120-B of IPC and
sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, under Section
419 r/w section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment
with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 420 r/w section 120-B of IPC and sentenced
to undergo three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 467 r/w
section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment with fine
of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 468 r/w section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to
undergo three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 471 r/w
section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment with fine
of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 3-D/ 4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examinations
Act and sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- with
default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, the solver namely Rajesh Prasad had
impersonated the appellant and had appeared in the PMT examination conducted
in the year 2010, who was arrested in the examination hall. Thereafter, the appellant
was apprehended and a criminal case has been registered against him.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent
person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no criminal
antecedents. The learned Trial Judge has not taken into consideration the relevant
evidence placed on record. The impugned judgment is based on presumptions and
assumptions. Even otherwise, the appellant had undergone two months jail
incarceration. Further jail incarceration in the company of with the hardened
criminals shall seriously jeopardized his life and family. He belongs to a poor
family. The appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of
the appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that execution
of the jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, Shri Newaskar, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI opposes
the application and supported the impugned judgment with submission that the
solver namely Rajesh Prasad had impersonated the appellant and had appeared in
the PMT examination conducted in the year 2010, who was arrested in the
examination hall, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore,
no exception can be taken in the matter. Upon hearing learned counsel for the
parties, but without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the fact that alleged act of impersonification is of the year
2010 and the impugned judgment has been passed in the year 2021 at a distance of
more than 11 years. The appellant is a young boy. At this stage, if appellant is
made to suffer further jail incarceration then the same will jeopardized his future.
The appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the
appeal in near future. This Court is of the view that the application deserves to be
allowed. It is, accordingly, directed that execution order of jail sentence of
appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be
enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees three Lakhs Only) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not
already deposited) for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12/05/2022,
and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard, with
following further conditions:
(i) Appellant will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and
orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the
local administration from to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing,
physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus
(COVID-19);
(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant, his medical examination be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is
prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the
consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any further test
required be undertaken immediately.
(iii) Appellant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station
on 2nd and 4th Saturday every month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon;
(iv) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of
bail.
Accordingly, I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2022.04.08
18:25:51 +05'30'
