Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6423 of 2022
(ANIL KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-12-2023
Shri S.R. Kushwaha - Advocate for appellant No.1.
None for appellant No.2.
Shri Ramji Patel - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.14048/2022, this is first application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.
on behalf of appellant namely Anil Kumar Pandey and Ramnarayan.
At the very outset, learned counsel for appellant No.1 submits that he
prays the said application on behalf of appellant No.1- Anil Kumar Pandey.
The appellant No.1 has been convicted vide judgment dated 09/07/2022
passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 161/2021 and
he has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498(A)
of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo RI
for 7 years, 2 years and 5 years and to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/-,
Rs.2,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for each offence respectively with usual default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the trial Court has
not properly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and committed
grave error in convicting the appellant No.1 for aforesaid offence. The
appellant No.1 has already suffered more than half of custodial sentence. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal and final hearing of same will take
considerable time, therefore, if remaining custodial sentence has not been
suspended, then the appeal filed by appellant No.1 may turn infructuous. Under
these circumstances, learned counsel for appellant No.1 prays for suspension
of jail sentence and release of the appellant No.1 on bail till the final disposal of
the appeal.
O n the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the contention
raised by learned counsel for appellant and prays for rejection of said
application.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled
with the fact that appellant No. 1 has suffered more than half of custodial
sentence and according to listing policy the hearing of this appeal will take time,
the application is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the remaining
jail sentence passed against appellant No.1- Anil Kumar Pandey shall remain
suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail
subject to depositing entire fine amount, if already not deposited and upon his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand
only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
C o urt for securing his presence appearance before the trial Court on
05/02/2024 and on such further dates as may be fixed by trial Court it in this
regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List the appeal after three weeks for question of maintainability of appeal
with respect to appellant No.2- Ramnarayan.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
skt
