Pratap Singh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9684 MP

                                                               1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT GWALIOR
                                                       CRA No. 6998 of 2021
                                        (PRATAP SINGH RAGHUWANSHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 27-06-2023
                                Mr. Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for appellant.

                                Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi - Advocate for the respondent - Lokayukt.

Heard on I.A.No.964/2023, second application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant - Pratap Singh Raghuvanshi.

First application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

26.07.2022.

Appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption, Act), District Shivpuri (M.P.) vide judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed in Special Session Trial No.6/2017 for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer three years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer five years RI with fine of Rs.7,000/-, with default stipulation.

Prosecution case, in brief is that on 02.01.2017 at about 11:30 pm a

quarrel took place between the complainant-Anil Tripathi and his land owner- Mahesh Kushwah @ Pappu, wherein the appellant being Head Constable of Physical Chowki seized complainant's 315 bore rifle without making any seizure memo. Thereafter, appellant after taking an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant, demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for releasing his aforesaid rifle. Thereafter, complainant made a written complaint on 10.01.2017 to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 27-Jun-23 5:39:35 PM

Gwalior, which was marked to Inspector P.K. Chaturvedi who provided a voice recorder to the complainant for recording of the conversation of the appellant with regard to the demand of rifle. On the next day i.e. 11.01.2017, complainant along with shadow witness went to Gandhi Petrol Pump, Shivpuri and recorded the appellant's voice with regard to the demand of bribe and thereafter on 13.01.2017 submitted the same along with written complaint (Ex.P-3), whereupon FIR was lodged. A trap was organized and appellant was caught red handed accepting the tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.8,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant-Anil Tripathi's statements with regard to the demand of bribe money are

inconsistent. The transcript memo of appellant's voice recording with regard to the demand of bribe has not been found to be proved by the trial Court itself. He referring the Para-20 and 40 of the complainant's statement submits that complainant himself has admitted that he after forcefully placing the tainted currency notes in the pocket of the appellant, shook his hand with the appellant, due to which the solution of sodium carbonate turned pink. The whole prosecution case is doubtful. The appellant is in custody since the date of the judgment i.e. 11.11.2021 and has suffered more than 1 year 8 months of jail incarceration. There is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future. Therefore, his remaining jail sentence be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukt has opposed the prayer and submits that appellant being Investigating Officer in the case took the rifle of the appellant without making any seizure memo and placed the same in the Police Chowki and demanded bribe money for releasing the same. The said rifle was seized from the custody of HCM of Police Chowki to whom the rifle was handed over by the appellant. Appellant has been caught red handed accepting Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 27-Jun-23 5:39:35 PM

the tainted currency notes. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the offences mentioned above. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Having considered rival submissions and material pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the statement of the complainant (PW-4) specially with regard to the demand of bribe money and acceptance of tainted currency notes, so also custody period of the appellant and also considering the fact that there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed and the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is suspended.

I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 23.08.2023, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

I.A.is allowed.

C.C. as per rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

bj/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 27-Jun-23 5:39:35 PM