Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramswaroop Chimaniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11484 of 2022
(RAMSWAROOP CHIMANIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
CRA/01369/2023
Dated : 20-02-2023
Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Siddharth Bendel for the
appellant in Cr.A. No.11484/2022.
Shri Shreyas Pandit - Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A.
No.1369/2023.
Shri S. K. Gupta - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Trial Court record has already been received.
Shri Shreyas Pandit - learned counsel for the appellant in Cr.A.
No.1369/2023 is heard on admission.
Prima facie, this appeal seems to be arguable. Hence, Cr.A.
No.1369/2023 is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.Nos.23324/2022 and 3887/2023, applications under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to
appellants pending the appeal.
T he appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under
Section 409 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5-5 years and
fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 02.12.2022
passed in S.T. No.100038/2015 (State of M.P. Vs. Sanjay Uikey and another)
by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Itarsi, District Narmadapuram.
Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that appellants have
been erroneously convicted by the learned trial Court. In the course of trial,
appellants were on bail and they have not misused the liberty granted by way of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/21/2023
11:29:37 AM
bail. It is submitted that only allegation against the appellants is that they have
embezzled Rs.40,000/-. Learned trial court did not properly appreciated the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and it has also not considered the
various contradictions and omissions, appeared in the evidence of the
witnesses. Both the appellants are reputed members of the society and they
have fully cooperated in the trial. Appellants have fair chances to succeed in
appeal. There is no possibility of coming of this appeal for hearing in near
future. Therefore, it has been prayed that the appellants be released on bail till
the disposal of appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
grant of bail to the appellants.
Having considered the allegation that appellants have been convicted for
embazzlement of Rs.40,000/- and have already suffered some period in jail
during the course of trial and after delivery of judgment and having taken into
consideration the fact that there is no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near
future, I am inclined to suspend the execution of remaining jail sentence of the
appellant.
Consequently, I.A.Nos.23324/2022 and 3887/2023 are allowed. The
execution of jail sentence of appellants- Ram Swaroop and Sanjay Uikey
are hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine amount if not already
deposited. It is directed that appellants be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each
with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court
on 15.06.2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/21/2023
11:29:37 AM
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 2/21/2023
11:29:37 AM
