Mehentilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 17116 MP

                                                                 1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                        CRA No. 7619 of 2022
                                               (MEHENTILAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 22-12-2022
                                 Shri Santosh Sahu - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Smt. Arti Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

I.A. No.24787/2022, an application for urgent hearing during winter vacation is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Heard on the question of admission.

After hearing the arguments of counsel for the appellant and perusal of record since the appeal involves arguable point, therefore, it is admitted for hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.16412/2022 which is an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Vide the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2022 passed in S.T. No.75/2017 by the Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, District Khandwa, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under

Sections 420, 467/34, 468/34, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs.2,500/- for each offence with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only the appellant has been convicted by the impugned judgment whereas the other five co-accused persons have been acquitted who were the main accused according to the appellant. He submits that considering the fact that the present appellant is only a guarantor, the finding given by the trial Court is perverse and is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 12/23/2022 11:36:32 AM

sustainable. He submits that the appellant is in jail from the date of impugned judgment and during trial he was on bail. He further submits that the final hearing of the appeal would take time and therefore, he prays that the remaining jail sentenced awarded to the appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, the counsel for the State has opposed the submission made by the counsel for the appellant.

Considering the facts that the appellant is a guarantor and is in jail since 18.08.2022 and the fact that the final hearing of appeal would take time, I am inclined to enlarge him on bail. Therefore, without commenting anything on the

merits, I.A. No.16412/2022 is allowed.

It is directed that on appellant's depositing the entire fine amount (if not deposited) as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2023 and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail, if not required to be detained in any other case.

I.A. Nos.24787/2022 & 16412/2022 stand disposed of. List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) V. JUDGE

ac/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 12/23/2022 11:36:32 AM

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 12/23/2022 11:36:32 AM