Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA-120-2023
(PRADEEP Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
DATED:- 18-01-2023
Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.M. Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.85/2023, the first application under Section 389
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of the sole appellant- Pradeep.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
30/12/2022 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District-
Guna (M.P.) in S.T. No.06/2017, whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Sections Sentence Fine (Rs.) Default Stipulation
420/120-B of IPC 5 Years RI 2,000/- 6 Months' RI
467/120-B of IPC 7 Years RI 5,000/- 1 Year's RI
468/120-B of IPC 5 Years RI 2,000/- 6 Months' RI
471 of IPC 7 Years RI 5,000/- 1 Year's RI
As per prosecution case, complainant- Gajanand Kirar filed a
complaint alongwith an application under Section 156(3) of of the Code
of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate First Class- Guna
against the appellant and other co-accused- Ramkishan Lodhi and
Shivcharan Badai to the effect that an agricultural land of the ownership
of the complainant situated at village Dobara, Tahsil- Bamori, District-
Guna (M.P.) which was purchased by him on 11/06/1984 vide registered
sale deed from one Rajendra Singh Sisodiya and he took the possession
of the said property. Complainant has remained government servant at
Kota (Rajasthan) and kept coming at his village Dobara at his field to
perform some agricultural work. Appellant and other co-accused were
in the knowledge of complainant of not residing permanently at village
Dobara and by taking benefit of the same fradulently making somebody
else as complainant and presented the said person in the office of the
Sub-Registrar, Guna, the aforesaid land was transferred vide registered
sale deed dated 24/07/2012 in favour of the appellant. On the basis of
aforesaid, crime was registered against the appellant. After
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been
falsely implicated in this case. He is not concerned with the case
directly or indirectly. The appellant has been wrongly convicted by the
learned trial Court. The appellant was on anticipatory bail during trial
and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. It is further submitted
that appellant is a bonafide purchaser. One Sandeep Sisodiya came to
his petrol pump who is middle man and an agreement to sale was
executed between seller and the appellant. Thereafter, he published
notification in local newspaper that he is purchasing the aforesaid land
from Gajanand but no objection has been received. Thereafter, he got
aforesaid sale deed executed on 24/07/2012 but he could not get
possession of the same. He filed the complaint against Sandeep
Sisodiya that despite payment of consideration amount, he could not get
possession. Danji is neighbourer of the complainant -Gajanand.
Complainant got information in the year 2013 that in place of
photograph of complainant, photograph of Danji has been affixed in the
sale deed but he has not lodged any complaint in this regard. At present,
despite giving consideration amount, he has not got possession of
purchased property. This fact was not considered by the trial Court and
passed impugned judgment of conviction. Appellant is in jail from the
date of passing of the judgment of conviction. He is the permanent
resident of District- Guna (M.P.). There are fair chances of success of
this appeal. The appeal is of the year 2023 which may take long time for
its conclusion and the appellant cannot be kept in custody for an
unlimited period. Under these circumstances, the execution of sentence
be suspended and the appellant be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the respondent/State opposed the bail application and prayed for
rejection of this application.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel
for the parties and the fact that an early hearing of this case is not
possible, I.A. No.85/2023 is allowed.
It is, therefore, directed that if appellant deposits the entire fine
amount, if not already deposited, and furnishes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 31st of March, 2023
and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of
imprisonment awarded to him, shall remain suspended till further orders
and he shall be released on bail.
IA No.85/2023 is allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
rahul
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cde4de
e473fe77953f5,
pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D487,
serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4AB9D1
59B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2023.01.19 18:08:15 +05'30'
