Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kiran @ Bablu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9012 of 2022
(KIRAN @ BABLU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 07-12-2023
Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel - Advocate for the appellants.
Smt. Vinita Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri S. K. Sharma-Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Heard on I.A. No.22119/2023, an application for change of counsel.
On due consideration, I.A. No. 22119/2023 is allowed and Shri
Sukhachain Chakravarti, Advocate and his associates are permitted to file
Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellants.
I.A.No.22119/2023 is disposed of accordingly.
Heard on I.A.No.22855/2023, which is second application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant
Nos.2 & 3 namely Krishna Singh Thakur and Vidhan Singh Thakur, pending the
appeal.
First bail application of appellant Krishna Thakur was dismissed on merit
vide order dated 25.01.2023 and Vidhan Singh's first bail application was also
dismissed on merit vide order dated 17.03.2023 passed by coordinate bench of
this Court.
Appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under
Section 368/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with
fine of Rs.1000/- and Section 201/34 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations vide judgment
dated 20.09.2022 delivered by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Nainpur,
District Mandla in S.C.No.42/2018 (State of M.P. Vs. Umesh Thakur &
Another).
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been
erroneously convicted by the learned trial Court. Referring the evidence of PW3
mother of prosecutrix, PW4 prosecutrix and school teacher Devkinandan Rai
PW9, it is submitted that at the time of commission of offence, prosecutrix was
above 18 years of age. Learned trial Court has committed error in coming to the
conclusion that she was below 18 years of age. It is further submitted that
prosecutrix in her statement has admitted that an advocate was engaged by the
father of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that main allegations are against
son. Present applicants are parents. Therefore, it is prayed that appellants may
be released on bail as they have undergone more than one year and three
months in jail.
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as
learned counsel for the objector has opposed the suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail to the appellants.
Appellants earlier two bail applications have already been dismissed on
merit after considering the evidence of witnesses and other material on record.
These applications were dismissed only 8-10 months ago. There is no change in
circumstances. Therefore, I see no reason to take a different view from the
earlier one. Therefore, this second application too is dismissed considering the
evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW-9.
Consequently, I.A. No.22855/2023 is dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
b
