Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6926 of 2022
(SUNIL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 10-01-2023
Shri Chandra Prakash Purohit - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sudhanshu Ukas - Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.11010 of 2022, which is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on
behalf of appellant No.2 Susheel and Appellant No.3 Pooja.
Appellant No.2 Susheel and appellant No.3 Pooja have been convicted
under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 17 of the
POCSO Act and have been sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of
Rs.2,000/- with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the appellants are
innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this matter. Both the
applicants are in custody because of their conviction in the aforesaid offence
since date of judgment that is 14.06.2022. Appellant Susheel has suffered jail
incarceration for the period of more than two years and appellant Pooja has
suffered jail incarceration for a period of 10 months. Both the appellants are not
the main accused, who have committed rape upon the minor prosecutrix.
During the trial appellants were on bail and they have not misused the liberty
granted to them. Looking to old pendency of the cases for consideration, final
conclusion of this appeal would take sufficient long time. There is a strong case
in favour of both the appellants. Hence, the execution of the remaining part of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 11-01-2023
10:33:03
the jail sentence of both the appellants be suspended till the final disposal of this
appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
allegation levelled against both the appellants and also taking note of the fact
that both the appellants are not the main accused, who have committed rape
upon the prosecutrix; although they are Jija and cousin sister of main accused
Sunil, allegation levelled against them is that they gave shelter to the co-accused
Sunil and prosecutrix in their house and helped him for commission of offence
of rape with the prosecutrix, appellant Pooja is young lady of 23 years and
Susheel is also young person aged about 25 years and appellants were on bail
during the trial; there is no complaint that they have misused the liberty granted
to them and final conclusion of the appeal will also take sufficient long time, in
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find it is to be a fit
case to suspend the remaining custodial sentence of both the appellants.
Accordingly, I.A. No.11010 of 2022 is allowed and it is directed subject
to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and subject to furnishing
personal bond by both the appellants in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Five Thousand Only) each with separate surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of
this Court on 03.05.2023 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in
this behalf, the execution of remaining custodial part of the sentence of both the
appellants shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 11-01-2023
10:33:03
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 11-01-2023
10:33:03
