Mohni Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5870 MP

                                                               1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                        CRA No. 2079 of 2021
                                                (MOHNI BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 11-04-2023
                                 Ms. Seema Maheshwari - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Mr. Rahul Solanki - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.4807 of 2023, which is the fifth application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant Mohni Bai.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this matter. She is a 42 years old lady and is suffering from some post operative complications. She has been recently undergone a hysterectomy surgery for removing the fibroid. The disputed land belongs to the appellant, but there is no evidence available on record that Ganja plant has been cultivated by her on the land belongs to her. The said land was bought by others on Bataidari and she was not aware about the Ganja cultivation. Sub-ordinate Court has erred in not believing the statement of Patwari and Photographer on record, which was completely in

favour of the appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Patwari and Photographer. Appellant is not having any criminal past. She is a permanent resident of District Neemuch. Hence, she prays that appellant be enlarged on bail and her remaining part of the jail sentence be suspended till the final disposal of this appeal.

In support of her contention, she has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhimsheppa Vs. The State of Karnataka passed in Crl. A. No.2521 of 2011 on 10.04.2019. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 12-04-2023 10:53:37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting that earlier application for suspension of sentence of appellant preferred under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed on merit vide order dated 24.11.2021. Hence, she does not deserve for any relief.

From perusal of the record of trial Court, it appears that Khasra (Ex.P-

16) Khasra No.220/2016 has been found in the name of appellant Mohnibai D/o Shobha Ram. On same area of the aforesaid Khasra Number, name of Saho Bai is also registered, but Patwari Santosh Sharma (PW-4) stated in his statement that Survey Number was not registered in the name of Shobha Ram,

but he has not denied that aforesaid Survey Number was not registered on the name of appellant Mohnibai. Statement of Investigating Officer is well supported by other documentary evidence. Applicant's earlier application has been dismissed on merit.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no material changes in the circumstance, therefore, this fifth repeated application preferred under Section 389(1) is dismissed.

According I.A. No.4807 of 2023 is rejected.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE

Anushree

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 12-04-2023 10:53:37