Madhya Pradesh High Court
Daroga Singh @ Umesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2596 of 2023
(DAROGA SINGH @ UMESH YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-06-2023
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Ajay Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant.
Considering reasons assigned in IA 4514 of 2023, an application under
Section 301(2) of CrPC filed on behalf of complainant seeking permission of
this Court to assist prosecution in the matter, the same is hereby allowed.
Heard on I.A.No.3668 of 2023, which is the first application u/Sec.
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellant- Daroga Singh.
Vide judgment dated 03.01.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge
Lahar, Dist. Bhind (M.P.) in Special Case No.SC/09/2021, present appellant has
been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) of IPC r/w Section 3/4 of
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo three years R.I., five years R.I., ten
years R.I. and ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.1000/-, Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.10,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
I n brief case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.2021 father of the
prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind alleging that
present applicant-accused persuaded her daughter to go with him. Thereafter,
she was rescued on 01.07.2021. Statements of the prosecutrix recorded in
which she has stated that she developed friendship with the applicant and
decided to solemnize marriage with him but her family members wants to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 6/15/2023
10:11:59 AM
solemnize marriage with another person for which she was not agreed. Due to
which prosecutrix was gone with appellant and stayed with him and appellant
made physical relationship with her. Thereafter, police caught hold off and
prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. During medical examination,
nothing adverse was found. After trial, appellant convicted as aforesaid by trial
Court under Section 363, 366 and 376(1) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO
Act.
It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in judicial
custody right from the date of arrest i.e., 09.07.2021 and has suffered total jail
incarceration of about 2 years. Appeal is of the year 2023 which may take long
time for it's conclusion. The appellant is ready to furnish adequate surety and
shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this
Court. Under these circumstances, the execution of sentence be suspended and
the appellant be released on bail.
O n the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.
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.3668/2023 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.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court for his appearance before
the Principal Registrar of this Court on 6th November, 2023 and on such
further dates as may be fixed by the office in this regard, sentence of
imprisonment awarded to him shall remain suspended till further orders and he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 6/15/2023
10:11:59 AM
shall be released on bail.
Application (I.A. No.3668/2023) is allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary
compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Vijay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 6/15/2023
10:11:59 AM
