Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Singh Bhadoriya vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 4 March, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1 CRA. 1237/2021
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 1237/2021
(Anil Kumar Singh Bhadoriya vs. The Director, Central
Bureau of Investigation)
Gwalior dated 04/03/2022
Shri Deependra Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for
respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.30482/2021, second application preferred
under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail on behalf of appellant-Anil Kumar Singh Bhadouria.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
29/01/2021 passed by Special Judge, (CBI) & Ivth Additional
Sessions Judge, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Sessions Case
No.75/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
as under :
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
120-B IPC 01 year 100/- 01 month
419/120-B IPC 03 years 500/- 03 months
420 IPC 03 years 500/- 03 months
467/120-B IPC 05 years 1000/- 06 months
468/120-B IPC 03 years 500/- 03 months
471/120-B IPC 05 years 1000/- 06 months
4 MP Recognized 01 year 100/- 01 month
Examination Act
Appellant so far as has undergone sentence for one and half
years.
As per prosecution case, two application forms were alleged to
have been filled in the name of Suneel for Constable Examination
2012 from Shivpuri and examination center was allotted at Gwalior.
2 CRA. 1237/2021
Instead of co-accused Sunil, his brother - present appellant Anil
already in the employment in police force, had impersonated and had
appeared in the examination. The incident is of the year 2012. The
case was handed over for investigation to the CBI in the year 2015.
During the course of investigation, the aforesaid fact was revealed.
Accordingly, the case was registered and challan was filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has
no criminal antecedents. Learned court below has not appreciated the
evidence brought on record in right perspective. The impugned
judgment suffers from vice of surmises and conjectures. The appellant
is a young person. Appellant has already suffered jail incarceration for
more than one and half years. Further jail incarceration shall seriously
jeopardized his career prospects. Besides in the company of hardened
criminals the medical and physical health of appellant shall also be
adversely affected. The appeal is of the year 2021 and there is no
likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future. In similar facts
and circumstances in almost similar cases this Court has suspended
jail sentence. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that execution
of the jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he may be
enlarged on bail.
Per contra, Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Asstt. Solicitor
General for the respondent/CBI opposes the application and
supported the impugned judgment with submission that the Court
below upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record has
reached to impregnable finding. The appellant is a Government
servant and has impersonated and has appeared in the examination in
place of co-accused Sunil. As such, the complicity of the appellant has
rightly been proved by the trial Court by clinching evidence placed on
record. Hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension
of sentence.
3 CRA. 1237/2021
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court though
refrains from commenting upon the merits of the case, however,
regard being had to the fact that the appellant is young boy and he had
already undergone one and half years' sentence; appellant has no
criminal antecedents; the incident is of the year 2012; the appeal is of
the year 2021 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal
in near future, this Court is of the view that the application deserves to
be allowed. It is, accordingly, directed that execution order of jail
sentence of appellant 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.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine
amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the Registry
of this Court on 20/04/2022, and on further dates as may be directed
by the Registry in that regard, with following further conditions:
(i) Appellant will abide by the terms and conditions
of various circulars and orders issued by the
Government of India and the State Government
as well as the local administration from to time in
the matter of maintaining social distancing,
physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid
proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);
(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that
before releasing appellant, his medical
examination 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 including the
isolation/quarantine or any further test required
be undertaken immediately.
(iii) Appellant shall mark his attendance before the
concerned police station on 2nd and 4th
Saturday every month between 10:00 a.m. To
12:00 noon;
(iv) On violation of the conditions, State is free to
apply for cancellation of bail.
4 CRA. 1237/2021
Accordingly, I.A.No. 30482/2021 stands allowed and disposed
of.
In view of the above order, IA No. 2621/2022, third application
for temporary suspension of jail sentence stands dismissed.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules.
(Rohit Arya) ( Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
(yog)
YOGESH VERMA
2022.03.05
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00' 13:03:15 +05'30'
