Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tekkishore Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10681 of 2022
(TEKKISHORE SAHU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-12-2023
Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveriya - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Vinay Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Heard on I.A. No.21868 of 2022, an application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants, pending
the appeal.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
he does not wish to press bail application (I.A. No.21868 of 2022) so far as it
relates to appellant No.2 Santosh Kumar Sahu & appellant No.3 Ajitram Sahu.
Accordingly, bail application (I.A. No.21868 of 2022) filed on behalf of
appellant No.2 Santosh Kumar Sahu & appellant No.3 Ajitram Sahu is
dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.
Appellant No.1 Tek Kishore Sahu has been convicted for commission of
offence under Section 420, 409, 120-B of IPC and Sections 4, 5 of the Prize
Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, R.I. for ten
years with fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,00,000/-,
R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and R.I. for 2 years with fine of
Rs.3,000/- respectively with default stipulations vide judgment dated 25.08.2022
delivered by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in ST No.149/2017
(State of M.P. Vs. Tek Kishore Sahu & Others).
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant No.1 has
no t committed any offence. He has been erroneously convicted by the trial
Court as it has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is submitted
that evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of omissions and contradictions
and such omissions and contradictions have not been considered in right
perspective by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that appellant Tek Kishore
has already suffered jail sentence of more than seven years. The appellant have
fair chance to succeed in the appeal. There is no possibility of hearing of this
appeal in near future. Therefore, if the execution of jail sentence of appellant is
n o t suspended, the purpose of filing this appeal would become futile.
Therefore, it has been prayed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant
No.1 Tek Kishore may be suspended and he be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
the grant of bail to the appellant.
On perusal of report received from Superintendent, Central Jail,
Narsinghpur (MP), it is apparent that appellant No.1 Tek Kishore Sahu has
suffered jail sentence of seven years.
Having considered the custody period already served out by the appellant
and the fact that there is bleak possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future,
I am inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.1 Tek
Kishore Sahu.
Consequently, bail application (I.A. No.21868 of 2022) filed on behalf
appellant No.1 Tek Kishore Sahu is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.1 - Tek Kishore Sahu is hereby suspended subject to
depositing the entire fine amount, (if not already deposited). It is directed that
the appellant No.1 be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond to a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to
appear before the trial Court on 01.02.2024 and also on such other dates, as
may be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
