Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahrukh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.672/2016
(Shahrukh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 25.1.2022
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pranay Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard through video conferencing.
Heard on I.A.No.6343/2021, fourth application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C.for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 363, 366 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-, under
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and
sentenced to undergo ten years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction dated 27.4.2016 passed by
Special Judge (Atrocities), Neemuch, District Neemuch in Special
S.T.No.15/2014.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his first application
filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 7.4.2017, while second application filed under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C.was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.6.2018 and third
application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 26.2.2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the ossification test
report Ex.P/12 of the prosecutrix submits that as her age is mentioned as
15-17 years, she was major at the time of incident. He further referring tot
he letters Ex.D/2 to D/11 written by the prosecutrix to the appellant,
submits that she was consenting party. Learned trial Court has committed
error in convicting the appellant. Appellant has suffered more than half
period of custodial sentence. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of
the trial. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances prays for suspension
of sentence and enlargement of appellant on bail, on such terms and
conditions this Court deems fit and proper.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application.
(Shahrukh Vs. State of M.P.)
Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by
learned counsel for the appellant and also the fact that appellant has
already suffered more than half of the custodial sentence and also
considering the fact that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the
trial, but without commenting on merits of the case application is
allowed.
It is directed that jail sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant is directed to
appear before the Registry of this Court on 7.3.2022 and on other
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the IA stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
Patil
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.01.27
10:09:56 +05'30'
