Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satendra Jat vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 22 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 14878 of 2023
(SATENDRA JAT Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION)
Dated : 22-12-2023
Shri Abhishek Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Susheel Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI.
Heard on IA.22133/2023, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of sole appellant-
Satendra Jat.
Appellant-Satendra Jat stood convicted under Sections 420 r/w Section
120-B of IPC, Section 467 IPC, Section 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC,
419 of IPC and u/s. 3 (d) (1) (2)/4 MPRE Act r/w Section 120-B of IPC and
sentenced to undergo Four Years RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, Four Years RI
with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, three Years RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, four Years
with a fine of Rs.5,000/- three Years RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and one year
RI with a find of Rs. 100/-, respectively, with default stipulations vide judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2023 passed by Special Judge
(CBI) and XII Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior (M.P.) in S.C.(CBI)
No.18/2017.
Appellant so far has suffered incarceration of two months and 21 days.
A s per prosecution story, letter No.665/2013 dated 14/08/13 & letter
No.665A/2013 were received at Police Station Dehat from Additional I.G.
Selection, PHQ & the superintendent of Police, Bhind respectively. Thereafter,
investigation was started and during investigation, it is found that co-accused
Muneem Khan appeared in the year 2012 (Roll No.272941) in Written Test for
Constable Selection Exam Conducted by Vyapam and got selection. After
taking the signature, thumb impression of the accused, the same were matched
with their signature as well as thumb impression but the same were not matched.
Thus, it is found prima facie that the person who is performing duty and the
person who had appeared in the Constable Selection Exam 2012 were different
persons, and another person was appeared in the exam over Roll No.212941
passed the same and succeed to get service over the post of Constable. The
Special Court upon due appreciation of the evidence placed on record
convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is
innocent and has falsely been roped in the present case. There are
contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Present appellant has been
convicted on account of the allegation that in the examination which was being
conducted to select Constable, present appellant has acted in capacity of the
impersonator in the Constable Selection Exam 2012. Appellant has no criminal
antecedents. It is submitted that appellant is a youth and if he is forced to
remain in custody then that will spoil his career. Conclusion of the appeal is
likely to take time. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that he will abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed and
accordingly prays that the appellant may be extended the benefit of suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/CBI
opposed the application while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence with submission that the present appellant has acted in
capacity of the impersonator in the Constrable Recruitment Examination, 2012
and thus he is not entitled to receive the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, without commenting
upon the contentions so advanced touching the merits of the case, in the
obtaining facts and circumstances, jail sentence of the appellant Satendra Jat
deserves to be suspended during pendency of the present appeal.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant-Satendra
Jath shall remain suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall
b e released on bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine
amount and on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.1,50,000/- each (one
of which should be local) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The appellant shall mark his attendance before concerned Police Station
on first Saturday of each and every month.
He is also directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
21/02/2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with
following further conditions:-
Accordingly, IA.22133/2023 stands allowed and closed.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
(ROHIT ARYA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2023.12.22 18:14:44
+05'30'
