Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lavli Nagwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1753 of 2023
(LAVLI NAGWANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 06-02-2023
Shri Vijay Sunderam, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri BPS Chauhan, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal appears to be arguable, hence admitted.
Let record of the Court below be requisitioned.
Also Heard on I.A. No.2284/2023, first application under Section
389 (1) of the Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of the appellant Lovely Nagwani.
Present appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated
20.01.2023 passed by Special Judge (Cyber Crimes), Gwalior in Special
Case No. 22/2019 for the offence under Section 66-C of IT Act and
sentenced to undergo one year SI with fine of Rs.1000/-; under Section
66-D of IT Act and sentenced to undergo one year SI with fine of
Rs.1000/-; under Section 67-C of IT Act and sentenced to undergo one
year SI with fine of Rs.1000/-; and, under Section 66-A of IT Act and
sentenced to undergo eighteen months' SI with fine of Rs.1000/-, with
default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated. The complainant has not
supported the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. The trial
Court has not evaluated the evidence collected on record in its right
perspective and has committed error in holding the appellant guilty. The
appellant has no criminal antecedents. Even otherwise, the impugned
judgment suffers from conjecture surmises and relevant evidence and
material placed on record.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was on bail during trial and the trial Court itself has suspended
the appellant's jail sentence uptil 20.02.2023. The appellant has not
misused the liberty granted to him.
Per contra, Shri BPS Chauhan, learned Public Prosecutor for the
State supported the impugned judgment and vehemently opposed the
prayer and submitted that no exception can be taken to the impugned
judgment in the matter of suspension of sentence. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of application for suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, though this court refrains from
commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the matter but
looking to the fact that appeal is of year 2023, appeal is not likely to be
heard finally in near future, besides the trial Court itself has suspended the
appellant's jail sentence uptil 20.02.2023, therefore, this Court is of the
view that the application deserves to be allowed.
It is, accordingly, directed that execution of jail sentences of
appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he
shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and
also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/04/2023, and on other
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further
conditions:-
(i) The concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing
the appellant, the medical examination of appellant be conducted through
the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms
of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action or any further test
required be undertaken immediately. If not, appellant shall be released on
bail in terms of the conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A.No.2284/2023 stands allowed and disposed
of.
Certified copy as per rules.
List for final hearing in due course.
(ROHIT ARYA)
JUDGE
yog
YOGESH VERMA
2023.02.07
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
19:27:44 +05'30'
