Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prashant Pachori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 248 of 2019
(PRASHANT PACHORI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 18-11-2022
Shri Sandeep Kostha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Abhishek Goswamy, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on I.A. No.15402/2022, fifth repeat application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail. First application IA No.2930/2019 was dismissed on
merit on 02.07.2019, second application IA No.438/2020 was dismissed on
merit on 05.02.2020, third application IA No.10500/2020 was dismissed as
withdrawn on 10.12.2020 and fourth application IA No.5579/2021 was
dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2021.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2018
passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.509/2017, whereby the
appellant has been convicted under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation and
Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
Signature Not Verified
SAN
stipulation.
Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail as on
SINGH
Date: 2022.11.18 17:39:21 IST
date and he has been wrongly convicted. The learned trial Court has erred in
appreciating the evidence on record. The appellant has already suffered
incarceration of about 3 and 1/2 years. The fine amount has already been
deposited by him. An early hearing of this appeal is not possible. Under these
circumstances, the execution of sentence be suspended and the appellant be
released on bail.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State opposes the aforesaid application and prays for his rejection.
An early hearing of this appeal is not possible. Taking into consideration
the period of sentence already undergone in the light of the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2006 (1) SCC
(Cri) 757, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the appellant.
I.A. stands allowed.
It is, therefore, directed that if appellant deposits the entire fine amount, if
not already deposited, and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court
on 06 th of February, 2023 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in
this regard, sentences of imprisonment awarded to him shall remain suspended
till further orders and he shall be released on bail.
The appellant shall furnish a written undertaking that he will abide by the
terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the
Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to
Signature Not Verified
time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to
SAN
avoid proliferation of Corona virus.
Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP
SINGH
Date: 2022.11.18 17:39:21 IST
List this matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
DPS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP
SINGH
Date: 2022.11.18 17:39:21 IST
