Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hyalle @ Halke vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 August, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2443 of 2014
(HALLE @ HALKE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
CRA No. 3283 of 2017
(HALLE BHAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-08-2023
Shri P.S. Tomar - Advocate for appellant-Halle @ Halke in CRA
No.2443 of 2014.
Shri V.K. Sharma - Advocate for appellant-Halle Bhai in CRA
No.3283 of 2017.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.3732 of 2020 and I.A. No.7083 of 2023.
These are the second applications filed by appellants namely accused
No.1-Halle @ Halke and accused No.2 Halle Bhai seeking for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail who have been convicted under Sections 363, 366,
376D of IPC and 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years, R.I. for 2 years and R.I.
for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/- respectively
with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment dated
21.08.2014 passed by Special Judge (under the POCSO Act), Sagar (M.P.). In
view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence was imposed
under section 5(g) thereof.
The earlier application for suspension of sentence filed by accused No.1-
Halle @ Halke was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated
17.06.2016 passed in CRA No.2443 of 2014 whereas the previous application
filed by accused No.2-Halle Bhai was dismissed on merits vide order dated
22.11.2017 passed in CRA No.3283 of 2017.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 8/17/2023
3:22:25 PM
The case of the prosecution is that the appellants-accused had taken the
victim to the house and committed the offence of gang rape for three days.
Thereafter, when she ran away from the house, she informed the incident to the
local villager. A complaint was thereafter lodged. The investigation was taken up
and the accused were arrested. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced as
detailed above.
The learned counsels for the appellants in both the cases submit that the
accused-appellants are in custody since 09.05.2013. They have by now
undergone 10 years and 3 months of sentence. Hence, considering the period of
detention, they may be granted bail.
However, on hearing the learned counsels, we are of the considered view
that the benefit of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Saudan Singh vs the State of U.P. and others (SLP (Criminal) No.4633
of 2021) dated 05.10.2021 would not apply to the accused-appellants herein.
The accused having committed the offence of gang rape on a minor aged about
14 years and 9 months, therefore, the exceptions as carved out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court would not help the accused. Hence, on the ground of their
custody period, no relief can be granted.
Further contention is that even though the accused have stated about the
commission of the offence, the same is not supported by the MLC. We have
considered the same. The statement of the victim is clear and cogent. She has
clearly narrated the manner in which the incident took place. There may be
some minor contradictions so far as MLC is concerned. They are all matters to
be considered at the stage of final hearing.
However, for the present, it is sufficient to notice that the gang rape has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 8/17/2023
3:22:25 PM
been committed by the accused on a minor. She was aged only 14 years and 9
months on the date of the incident. Hence, we do not find any ground to enlarge
the accused on bail.
Consequently, I.A. No.3732 of 2020 and I.A. No.7083 of 2023 are
dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vinod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 8/17/2023
3:22:25 PM
