Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakir Sheikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4930 of 2021
(SHAKIR SHEIKH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-06-2022
Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
Shri Kaustubh Pathak, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the objector.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A.No.26944/2021, which is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant - Sakir
Sheikh.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(N)/109,
506, 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years RI fine of
Rs.5000/-, 2 years RI with fine of Rs.3000/-, 3 years of RI with fine of
Rs.1000/- and under Section 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and
sentenced him to 2 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and 7 years RI with fine of
Rs.2000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 24.06.2021 passed by Special Judge, Indore District Indore in
S.T.No.104/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly appellant is the
husband of the prosecutrix and both were living together at the time of incident.
There was a family dispute between the appellant and prosecutrix due to which
she lodged FIR against the appellant stating therein that he compelled her to
Signature Not Verified
SAN make relations with other persons. Prosecutrix in her statement recorded under
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.06.28 10:09:39 IST Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not mention the name of such persons with whom
appellant said to make relations. Prosecutrix herself filed affidavit in favour of
the appellant stating therein that she has no objection if appellant is enlarged on
bail. Hence, learned trial Court has committed error in holding the appellant
guilty. Moreso, appellant is in custody for more than four years and there is no
likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. Therefore, considering the allegations
alleged against him and also period of custody 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 Govt.Advocate opposes the prayer for suspension of
sentence.
Learned counsel for objector has no objection if the appellant is enlarged
on bail.
Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.
Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by counsel
for the appellant, period of custody which is more than 4 years as well as there
is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal, so also considering overall facts
and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits of the case,
application is allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, appellant shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with solvent surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court firstly on 25.08.2022, and on such other dates, as may
be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
I.A.No.26944/2021 is allowed.
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.06.28 10:09:39 IST
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Vibha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.06.28 10:09:39 IST
