Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 4097 of 2022
(SANTOSH KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 13-07-2022
Shri Rajmani Bansal - Advocate - for the appellant.
Shri Naval Gupta - Public Prosecutor - for respondent/State.
Shri Neeraj Dhamanya - Advocate - for the complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.11160 of 2022, an application under Section 301 (2) of
Cr.P.C for permission to assist Public Prosecutor in the matter.
For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed and Shri
Neeraj Dhamanya Advocate is permitted to assist Public Prosecutor in this
case.
Also heard on IA.No.7203 of 2022 first application under Section 389 (1)
o f Cr.P.C filed on behalf of Santosh Kushwah seeking suspension of
sentence.
Appellant stands convicted under Sections 376 (3) of IPC and
sentenced to undergo Twenty years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.2.2022
passed in SST No.2 of 2020 by II ASJ/Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012
Vidisha (M.P.).
It is said at bar that during trial, appellant was in judicial custody for Six
months and since the date of judgment dated 25.2.2022, he is suffering jail
sentence.
At this stage, Shri Rajmani Bansal, counsel for the appellant submits that
as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix and the appellant have solemnized marriage
in jail with permission of the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Vidisha. The
prosecutrix is also present in the Court. The photographs of the marriage with
due attestation by counsel for the complainant have been filed through
I.A.No.11160 of 2022, an application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C by the
prosecutrix and identified by Shri Neeraj Dhamanya, counsel for the
complainant.
Shri Gupta, though at the first instance opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence on the premises that the offence under Section 376 has
been made out against appellant beyond reasonable doubt as concluded by the
trial Court, the judgment is impeccable in nature. However, in the obtaining
facts and circumstances, where prosecutrix herself has made statement before
the Court that she has married the appellant as aforesaid, he has no comment to
offer.
Consequently, I.A.7203 of 2022 deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant Santosh shall
remain suspended and he be released on bail subject to depositing the amount
of fine (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Appellant is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court first on 25/08/2022 and on other subsequent
dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing the
appellant, the medical examination of appellant be conducted through the jail
doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-
19, then the consequential follow up action or any further test required be
undertaken immediately. If not, appellant shall be released on bail in terms of the
conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A.No.7203 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
It is made clear that the observations made on facts shall have no bearing
on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rks
RAM KUMAR SHARMA
2022.07.14 10:14:37
+05'30'
