Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aarun vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 11887 of 2022
(AARUN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 16-02-2023
Shri Chandra Prakash Purohit, learned counsel for the Appellant.
Shri K. K. Tiwari, learned G.A. for respondent/State.
Learned G.A. for respondent/State has informed that the prosecutrix has
been served.
Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of prosecutrix.
Heard on I.A. No.16280/2022, which is first application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C filed on
behalf of the Appellant No. 2 Ritesh.
The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 363 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 366
of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- with
default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
08.12.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Dhar (M.P.) in
S.T. No.07/2022.
As per prosecution case, the co-accused and prosecutrix (PW-1) are
familiar and knew each other. On 29.01.2022, the co-accused Arun sent the
prosecutrix to Indore with his brother/present appellant. The present appellant
left her Indore in a room and told her that Arun will come after some time and
the present appellant went somewhere from there. After some time co-accused
came there, the prosecutrix and co-accused went to temple and solemnized
marriage. Thereafter, the co-accused made physical relationship with her and at
the time of incident, the prosecutrix was minor aged about 16 years. On
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 20-02-2023
15:44:14
02.02.2022, her father alongwith Police came there and Police recovered the
prosecutrix from possession of the co-accused Arun.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not
committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. As per
prosecution story, the present appellant took the prosecutrix to Indore from
Pithampur but as per MLC Report (Ex. P-7) she went to Indore with co-
accused Arun and co-accused made physical relationship with her therefore,
proseuction story is contradictory in respect of role played by appellant.
Appellant was in custody from 03.02.2022 to 04.04.2022 and he is also in
custody since the date of the judgment i.e. 08.12.2022. Final hearing of this
appeal is not possible in near future. Therefore, it is prayed that remaining
sentence may be suspended and the appellant may be released on bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the
prayer of the appellant but he has not disputed the custody period of the
appellant.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
Considering the role of the appellant and also considering the evidence
available on record against the appellant, coupled with the fact that final hearing
of this appeal is not possible in near future, therefore, without commenting any
opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A. No.16280/2022 is allowed
and jail sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, Appellant- Ritesh, shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 20-02-2023
15:44:14
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court firstly on 27.03.2023, and on such other
dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this
appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 20-02-2023
15:44:14
