Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 11328 of 2022
(SUNIL GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-02-2023
Shri Surendra Singh Parihar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri C.P. Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A.No.19549/2022, an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant-Sunil Gupta.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 9(I) read with
Section 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of
Rs.2000/- and under section 506 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo one
year's RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2022 passed by Exclusive Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Gwalior in SC Case No.93/2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not
produced any other document except the mark-sheet of 2nd standard of the
prosecutrix (Ex.P/4) and certificate (Ex.P/10) issued by Principal of Gwalior
Public School with regard to the age of the prosecutrix wherein her date of birth
is written as 05/09/2007. It has not been brought on record that on what basis
her date of birth was written therein as 05/09/2007. The statement of the
prosecutrix as well as her parents are inconsistent on the point of age of the
prosecutrix and also about the incident. Admittedly, FIR was lodged after about
14 months of the incident without any satisfactory reason. The whole
prosecution case is doubtful. Learned trial Court has committed error in holding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 07-02-2023
10:13:27 AM
the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. Appellant has suffered about two
years of jail incarceration out of five years. There is no likelihood of hearing of
appeal in near future. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant
prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of the bail to the
appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and
submits that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. Prosecutrix as well
as her mother and other prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution
case. Offences alleged against the appellant are of serious nature, therefore, he
is not entitled for bail.
Having considered the rival submissions and the material produced with
regard to the incident and also considering the fact that the FIR was delayed
about 14 months and so also the fact that the appellant has suffered about two
years of jail incarceration and that the appellant was on bail during trial and he
did not misuse the liberty granted to him and the conclusion of the trial will take
some time but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the
application is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with separate solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for their appearance
before the Registry of this Court firstly on 10.04.2023, and on such other
dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this
appeal.
I.A.is allowed.
Signature Not Verified
C.C. as per rules.
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 07-02-2023
10:13:27 AM
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Monika
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 07-02-2023
10:13:27 AM
