Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak 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. 4873 of 2021
(DEEPAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-02-2023
Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.P.S.Chouhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 1611 of 2023, which is third application filed on behalf
of the appellant under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence
and grant of bail. His first application (I.A.No.30281/2021) was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 04.03.2022 and second application
(I.A.No.17830/2022) was dismissed on merits vide order dated 22.11.2022.
The appellant is in custody for almost one and half years.
Vid e judgment dated 13.08.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge
Pichhor, District Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.09/2020, the appellant
stands convicted for the offences punishable under sections 363 366 of IPC
and sentenced to respectively undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.2000/-
and R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.3000/- with corresponding default
stipulations. He has also been convicted for the offence under Section 4 of
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-
with default stipulations with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run
concurrently.
Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 29.04.2018 the
complainant lodged a report with the Police Station Khaniyadhana to the effect
on 29.04.2018 at about 8.30 in the evening she went to fetch water from well
and her daughter/prosecutrix aged about 16 years was at home. When she
returned, she did not find her daughter at home. She went to the village for her
search she saw that her daughter went on motorcycle with the Deepak Jatav,
who is brother in law of her another daughter Rani and used to come to her
house. She waited for her daughter but she did not return. She has
apprehension that the appellant has enticed her daughter away. Upon such
report, offence was registered at Crime No.147/2018 at Police Station
Khaniyadhana for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC,
Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 8 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The learned trial Court, after critical evaluation of the evidence on record, has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated. The prosecutrix
and the appellant got married and having two children and were living happily
together. There is no other in the family to take care of the prosecutrix and two
children. The appeal is of the year 2021 and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal. He was on bail during trial and has not misused the
liberty so granted. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for suspension of
custodial sentence is made.
P e r contra, while supporting the impugned judgment, learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and prays for
rejection of the application.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting on rival contentions touching the merits of the case, yet
taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case
including that this appeal is of the year 2021 and its final disposal is likely to
take time, is of the view that the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of
suspension of custodial sentences. Thus, the application deserves to be
allowed.
Consequently, the I.A. is hereby allowed. It is directed that the jail
sentences of appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail
subject to depositing the amount of fine (if not already deposited) and on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac
only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first 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.
It is made clear that the observations made on facts shall have no bearing
on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA)
JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2023.02.07
11:26:55 +05'30'
