Butti @ Govind Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5628 MP

                                                                          1
                                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                                   CRA No. 7006 of 2021
                                                      (BUTTI @ GOVIND YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     Dated : 19-04-2022
                                            Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                            Shri Anoop Sonkar, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A. No.20790/2021, which is an application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Katni (M.P.) in S.T. No.2700218/2016 appellant has been convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations, as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. There are material contradictions, improvements, omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. DNA and medical reports do not support the prosecution case. The appellant, who is aged about 28 years is in jail since long time being single earning member in his family.

If he is not released on bail, his future will be spoiled in the company of hardened criminals inside the jail. Final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time. Therefore, prayer is made to suspend the sentence of the appellant/applicant.

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

There are two reports which have been filed by the prosecutrix as Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-2 for the same incident, while the facts are different in both the reports. Prosecutrix is a married lady. It has been further accepted that there was some dispute between the appellant and husband of the prosecutrix.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the evidence available on record, but without commenting on merits of the case, Signature Not Verified SAN the application is allowed.

I t is directed that subject to depositing entire fine amount, if not already Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2022.04.20 16:21:07 IST

deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, remaining jail sentence imposed upon appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall

be released on bail. Appellant shall appear before the Trial Court concerned on 22.08.2022 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this regard.

List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE

rv

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2022.04.20 16:21:07 IST