Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 1st OF FEBRUARY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5587 of 2021
Between:-
1. BALRAM S/O HEERALAL SURYANWANSHI ,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR VILLAGE ASAWATI CHOUKI,
CHANDWASA, P.S.SHAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. BABLU @ ASHOK S/O KALURAM BALAI ,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR VILLAGE ASAWATI CHOUKI,
CHANDWASA, P.S.SHAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(By Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. SHAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(By Shri A.S. Sisodiya, learned Govt. Advocate )
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This application coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:
ORDER
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Further, heard on I.A.No.271352/2021, which is first application under
section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail
filed, on behalf of the appellant no.2 - Bablu @ Ashok.
The appellant No.2 -Bablu @ Ashok has been convicted under section
366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for five years with fine of
Rs.2,000/- vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2021
Signature Not Verified
SAN passed in Sessions Trial No.09/2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.02.02 09:58:47 IST
Garoth, Mandsaur.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court in its
impugned judgment has found that prosecutrix was major at the time of
incident and she lived with co-accused/appellant Balram from 26.09.2017 to
02.04.2018. It is specifically mentioned therein that the only allegation against
the appellant No.2- Bablu which is found proved that he alongwith other co-
accused/appellant Balram forcefully took the prosecutirx and
kidnapped/abducted her on the date of incident. Rest all other allegations
made against the appellant No.2 has not been proved. He is in custody since
06.09.2021 and appeal will take enough time for its final disposal. Therefore,
the sentence of the appellant No.2 may be suspended and he may be released
on bail.
P e r contra, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the application for
suspension of sentence of appellant No.2.
Having considered the rival submissions, period of jail incarceration of
the appellant No.2 and also considering the nature of allegation made against
the appellant No.2, without commenting upon the rival contentions touching
the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed in
respect of appellant no.2 -Bablu.
Consequently, I.A., is hereby allowed and it is directed that execution
of jail sentence of the appellant no.2 - Bablu 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.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already
deposited) for appearance before the Registry of this Court o n 28.02.2022,
and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.
C.c. as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.02.02 09:58:47 IST
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Vibha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.02.02 09:58:47 IST
