Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uma Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 11978 of 2022
(UMA BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-03-2023
Shri Rajneesh Sharma-Advocate for appellant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani-Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.2535 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 368A of IPC and sentenced
undergo RI for one year with a fine of Rs.100/-, under Section 212 IPC for one
year's RI with a fine of Rs.100/-; under Section 376(3) read with Section 109
IPC 20 years' RI with a fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 376(2)(n) read with
Section 109 of IPC 10 years' RI with a fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 17 of
POCSO Act 10 years' RI with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2022 passed by
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Guna, District Guna (M.P.) in SC/30/2021.
As per prosecution story, uncle (of the prosecutrix-aged 14 years)
lodged an FIR on 28.02.2020 to the effect that prosecutrix was missing since
intervening night of 27.12.2020 suspecting her abduction by co-accused Anil
Sharma (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.11984 of 2022). Based upon it, FIR
was registered at Crime No.909/2020 at Police Station Aron, District Guna
(M.P.). The prosecutrix was recovered on 04.01.2021 from Goverdhan,
Mathura. Her statements were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
MLC was also conducted on her and blood samples were sent for their
chemical analysis to the FSL, Sagar. After completion of investigation, challan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 3/21/2023
6:39:31 PM
was filed before the court of competent jurisdiction. The Special Court upon
critical evaluation and the appreciation of evidence placed on record convicted
and sentenced the present appellant along with co-accused Omkar Sharma and
Anil Sharma (Main Accused).
Shri Sharma, learned counsel for appellant, while taking exception to the
impugned judgment submits that appellant who is a lady, aged about 47 years,
is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Special Court
has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The
judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. She is the mother of the main
accused-Anil. Her name did not appear either in the FIR or in the statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, but in the statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix stated that appellant and the co-accused
Omkar, her husband, encouraged the prosecutrix to run away with their son i.e.
the main accused Anil Sharma and solemnize marriage. In the ocular evidence,
she has not stated anything either against present appellant Uma or against co-
accused Omkar Sharma (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.11980 of 2022), in
examination-in-chief. As such, there is nothing on record to justify conviction
and sentence of the present appellant. Appellant has already suffered
incarceration of about one year. There are no criminal antecedents against her.
Appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of final hearing of the
instant appeal in the near future. On these grounds, learned counsel for appellant
submits that the present appellant may be extended the benefit of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the impugned judgment submits that
Signature Not Verified
appellant is the abettor of the crime of abduction and therefore no exception
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 3/21/2023
6:39:31 PM
can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching the merits of
the case, but regard being had to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
instant case, appellant so far has undergone 01 year's incarceration and that the
present appeal is not likely to be decided in the near future, we are of the view
that present appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.2535 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the
present appeal and she shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and on her furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. She is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court first on 03/05/2023 and on other subsequent
dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant, her medical examination be conducted through the jail
doctor and if it is prima facie found that she is having any
symptom of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action
or any further test required be undertaken immediately. If not,
appellant shall be released on bail in terms of the conditions
imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 3/21/2023
6:39:31 PM
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 3/21/2023
6:39:31 PM
