Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15912 MP
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.5077/2022
(Deepu Ray @ Pappu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Gwalior Bench : Dated : 01.12.2022
Shri Rajiv Budholiya, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Anil Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.13294 of 2022, first application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant.
This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is
preferred by appellant against the judgment dated 05.04.2022
passed by the Special Judge (POCSO) Act 2012 and Second
Additional Session Judge, District Datia (Madhya Pradesh) in
Special Case No.38/2018, whereby appellant has been convicted as
under:-
Sections Act Imprisonment Fine
363 IPC R.I. for 3 years Rs.3000/-with default stipulation
366 IPC R.I. for 7 years Rs.5000/- with default stipulation
376 (2) ( IPC R.I. for 10 Rs.10,000/- with default
p) years stipulation
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.5077/2022
(Deepu Ray @ Pappu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
376 (2) ( IPC R.I. for 10 Rs.10,000/- with default <) years stipulation
It is the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the
trial Court erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to the
appellant. It is further submitted that appellant already suffered
four and half years' incarceration and did not get the benefit of bail
during trial. Trial Court erred ignoring the fact that initially
statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which was
taken by the police indicates the consensual nature of relationship
but after two months another statement by way of supplementary
statement has been taken in which she implicated the appellant.
Such contradiction is material. Even otherwise if subsequent and
supplementary statement is considered even then it indicates that
for 19 days prosecutrix lived with appellant without raising any
alarm. Hearing of appeal will take time and he has a good case on
merits. Appellant shall not be a source of embarrassment or
harassment to the complainant side in any manner. Learned counsel
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.5077/2022 (Deepu Ray @ Pappu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
fairly submits that if appellant is released on bail then appellant
shall abide by all conditions imposed by this Court. Thus, prayed
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed
the application and prayed for its dismissal.
Looking to the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties as well as the fact that final hearing of this appeal would
take some time, application I.A.No.13294/2022 is hereby allowed.
If appellant furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he shall
appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 31-01-2023
and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office for
appearance, then he shall be released on bail and execution of jail
sentence is suspended till disposal of this appeal.
Appellant shall not move in the vicinity of the
complainant side in any manner and shall not be a source of
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.5077/2022 (Deepu Ray @ Pappu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
embarrassment or harassment to the complainant side in any
manner.
I.A.No.13294 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Anand Pathak)
AK/- Judge
ANAND KUMAR
2022.12.02
10:43:20 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!