Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satendra Singh Tekam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2023
Author: Anjuli Palo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1626 of 2022
(SATENDRA SINGH TEKAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-04-2023
Shri T.S. Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Shri Uma Shankar Tiwari -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Record of the Court below has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A.No.2838 of 2023, which is second application under
Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf
o f appellant arising out of judgment dated 03.02.2022 delivered in
S.T.No.57/2018, by Additional Sessions Judge, Niwas, District Mandla. His
earlier application (I.A.No.2746/2022) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 19.09.2022
The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 420 of
the IPC read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years
with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Section 467 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Section 468 of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Section 471 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively, with
default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and
Signature Not Verified
SAN
has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. The trial Court has not
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2023.04.12 10:02:39 IST
properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. He
further submits that appellant is first offender. He also submits that appellant
was on bail during trial but he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. It is
further submitted that appellant is in custody from the date of judgment i.e.
03.02.2022 and final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time.
Hence, prayer has been made to suspend the jail sentence of appellant.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence and prays for its rejection.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
From the record, it appears that the appellant manipulated the questioned
cheque and added Rs.2 lakhs before Rs.16,251/- but extra amount has not been
disbursed in favour of anyone. The appellant is in custody since the date of the
judgment i.e. 03.02.2022. Earlier he was in custody from 24.01.2016 to
13.05.2016 for more than 03 months 19 days.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the custody period of the appellant, without commenting on merits
of the case, the application is allowed.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of appellant shall remain
suspended and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the
trial Court on 05.09.2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this
regard during pendency of this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
The appellant shall regularly appear before the trial Court, on each and
SAN
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
every date, without fail.
Date: 2023.04.12 10:02:39 IST
List this matter for final hearing in due course.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
Nitesh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2023.04.12 10:02:39 IST
