Rajabhaiya Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7746 MP

                                1                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11423/2022
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                 CRA No. 11423 of 2022
                                       (RAJABHAIYA GURJAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 11-05-2023
                                 Mr. Lal Bahadur Singh Gujar - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi - Advocate for the respondent/

Lokayukt.

Heard on I.A.No.8032/2023. This is third application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant.

The appellant has been convicted for the following offences:-

                           Conviction U/s     Sentence          Fine              Default (in lieu of
                                                                                  fine)
                           120-B of IPC       02 years          2000/-            3 months
                           7 of P.C. Act      03 years          2000/-            6 months

The prosecution case in brief is that a complaint was filed by

one Om Prakash Vishvaiya (PW/1) against the present appellant as

well as co-accused Abhishek Chaturvedi, who was working on the

post of Sub Registrar, Office Circle-2, Morar regarding demanding

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 5/13/2023 11:24:53 AM 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11423/2022 bribe along with video and audio CD. On the basis of aforesaid

allegations, an FIR was lodged. Upon completion of investigation,

challan was filed. The case was committed to Special Court

(Prevention and Corruption Act) for its trial. The Special Court

upon critical evaluation of evidence placed on record has convicted

and sentenced present appellant along with other co-accused as

aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court

has wrongly convicted the present appellant without having any

cogent evidence against him. Further argument is that the record

reveals that Investigating Officer has committed serious error

during the investigation. The evidence which have been led by the

prosecution is not sufficient to convict the appellant. Citing the

judgment in the case of Prem Raj Meena Vs. Chentral Bureau of

Investigation reported in 2011 SCC Online Del 909 he has argued

that prosecution has failed to prove the appellant either accepted,

obtained or attempted to get illegal gratification from the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 5/13/2023 11:24:53 AM 3 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11423/2022 complainant in order to establish the guilt of the appellant under

Section 7 of P.C. Act. There are material omission and

contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Present

criminal appeal is likely to take long time to conclude. Hence,

prayed to suspend the jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant-

Raja Baiya Gurjar.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that merely because the

Trial Court has suspended the sentence would not mean that this

Court is debarred from considering the merits of the case. It is

further submitted that his first application has also been dismissed

on merits by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

12.12.2022, thereafter, his second bail application was also

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.03.2023. It is further

argued that bail application of co-accused Abhishek Chaturvedi has

already been dismissed as withdrawn by Hon'ble Supreme Court

vide order dated 05.01.2023 in SLP (Cri) No. 12686 of 2022. In

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 5/13/2023 11:24:53 AM 4 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11423/2022 such circumstances, he should not be released on bail at this stage.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

From perusal of the record, it is seen that the view taken by

this Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on

record and there is nothing on record to take a different view than

the view taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting

the first bail application of present appellant, accordingly, the

application (I.A. No.8032 of 2023) stands rejected.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Sunita Yadav) Judge LJ*

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 5/13/2023 11:24:53 AM