Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag vs The State Of M.P. on 22 December, 2023
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1214 of 2023
(ANURAG Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 22-12-2023
Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Dilip Kumar Shrivastava - Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.1540/2023, which is the first application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
T he appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the
impugned judgment dated 24/12/2022 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge,
Hata, District Damoh in S.T.No.22/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. There are several
omissions and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution
witnesses. It is submitted that the appellant is not a habitual offender. During
trial appellant remained in custody from 11/02/2019 to 14/09/2019 and is in
custody since the date of judgment i.e. 24/12/2022, thus he has already
remained in custody for more than one and half year. It is prayed that the
application be allowed and the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended and
he be released on bail as final hearing of this appeal will take time. In support of
his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno & Another Vs.
Inspector of Police passed in Cr.A.No.1628/2022 decided on 12/10/2022 and
orders passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.22762/2021 (Rajesh Vs. State of
MP) decided on 15/06/2021, M.Cr.C.No.22762/2021 (Rajesh Vs. State of
MP) decided on 15/06/2021, M.Cr.C.No.8161/2017 (Dinesh Vs. Suryabhan
Vishwakarma) decided on 13/11/2017 and a judgment passed by Chattisgarh
High Court in Cr.A.No.3451/1999 (Shivshankar Verma Vs. State of M.P.)
decided on 20/12/2019.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prayed for dismissal of the above application.
It is alleged that the appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix on
false pretext of marriage, due to which she got pregnant. Thereafter, appellant
and his family members denied to marry the appellant with prosecutrix, so the
prosecutrix committed suicide. DNA is also posetive.
The facts of the cases upon which reliance is placed by the learned
counsel for the appellant do not match with the present case. In the above-
mentioned cases principle for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has not
been laid down.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations
levelled against the appellant and the gravity of offence, this Court is not
inclined to suspend the jail sentence of appellant at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1540/2023 is dismissed.
List for final hearing in due course.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
as
