Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 410 of 2017
(SUNIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-07-2022
Ms Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Further, heard on I.A.No.13396/2021, which is third application filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C, for suspension of jail sentence moved on
behalf of the appellant - Sunil. His earlier applications filed under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.05.2018 and
09.09.2020.
Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
u/S 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years with fine of
Rs.500/-,and under Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo
RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2017 passed by 2nd Additional
Session Judge, Ratlam in ST No.64/2016.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix in her
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. admitted that she volutarily
went with the appellant. Prosecutrix's parents have not produced any material
on the basis of which prosecutrix's date of birth was written in her school
scholar register (ex.P-15). Material evidence do not support the prosecution
case. Appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Even otherwise, he
has suffered about 06 year and 04 months of jail incarceration out of total
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 7/28/2022
11:33:21 AM
sentence of 10 years awarded. There is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in
near future. With the aforesaid, prayer is made for suspension of the remaining
custodial period of the appellant and grant of the bail to the appellant.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/state as well as learned counsel
for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer for suspension of remaining
jail sentence with the submission that offences alleged against the appellant are
serious in nature. Hence, no case for suspension of sentence and grant of the
bail to the appellant is made out .
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties,
statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P. C. as well as
during trial, evidence produced on record with regard to the age of the
prosecutrix, so also the period of custody suffered by the appellant which is
more than 50% of the total sentence awarded, this Court is of the considered
view that it is a fit case for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter
I.A.No.13396/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited he shall be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand only) along with a solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court firstly on 28.09.2022 and on such other dates, as may
be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 7/28/2022
11:33:21 AM
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Vibha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 7/28/2022
11:33:21 AM
