Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijendra Rajput vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 947 of 2022
(BRIJENDRA RAJPUT Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-08-2022
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Record has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal seems to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.3078/2022, which is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against
appellant.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 20.01.2022
passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhatarpur
District Chhatarpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.409/2012 whereby learned Special Judge
found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under
Section 467 r/w 471 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years with
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is alleged that appellant
filed forged mark-sheet along with application to secure the job of Gram Rojgar
Sahayak but mark-sheet is not a valuable security and there is no evidence on
record to show that appellant prepared that document, so no offence under
Section 468 of IPC is made out against the appellant. At the most offence
Signature Not Verified
SAN punishable under Section 471 r/w 465 of IPC is made out against the appellant.
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2022.08.03 18:58:32 IST Appellant has no criminal past. He is in custody since the date of judgment i.e.
20.01.2022. Hence prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the
appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal will take time. In this regard, he
also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement passed in the case of
Nebh Raj v. State (Delhi Administration) and Another reported in (1980) 4
SCC 552.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and
submitted that appellant prepared forged mark-sheet and used it as genuine and
he committed fraud with the Government. It is further submitted that the guilt of
the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt from the prosecution
evidence, therefore, the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in
finding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. So, the sentence of
appellant should be not suspended and prayed for dismissal of the application
for suspension of sentence.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, contention of learned
counsel for the appellant and the fact that appellant has no criminal past, he is in
custody since 20.01.2022 and according to listing policy the hearing of this
appeal will take time, the application is allowed and it is directed that the
execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellant shall remain
suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail upon
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only)
with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/12/2022 and on such
further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency
of this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2022.08.03 18:58:32 IST
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
mn
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2022.08.03 18:58:32 IST
