Motilal Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4267 MP

                                               1
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                AT JABALPUR
                                  CRA No. 7499 of 2021
                         (MOTILAL KEWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 28-03-2022
       Mr. A. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant.

       Ms. Sunanda Kesharwani, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
       Heard on admission.
       Appeal seems to be arguable, therefore, admitted for hearing.
       Heard on I.A. No.21965/2021 which is first application filed by the appellant under

Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
       The appellant has been convicted by the impugned judgment and conviction dated
27.11.2021

passed by learned Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Case No.26/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and 7 years, respectively.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the trial

Court are perverse in the impugned judgment. The trial Court has not considered the evidence on record. It is further contended that there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR. In fact, the age of the prosecutrix is more than eighteen years and she on instigation of her parents due to previous enmity, she had lodged the false complaint and gave statement against the appellant. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant be released on bail after suspension imposed on him.

Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Emphasis has been laid down by the counsel for the appellant on delayed FIR. In this context, suffice it to say, the trial Court in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment has held that at the time of the incident the parents of the prosecutrix were out of station for the purpose of labour works and they returned after eight days. Hence, there is delay in lodging of FIR. The appellant is a married man having two children. The prosecution case is supported by the FSL report.

In view of the above, it is not a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Hence, I.A. No.21965/2021 is dismissed.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE

ks

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.03.31 17:16:23 IST