Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Prasad Rautel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2023
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10401 of 2023
(MAHENDRA PRASAD RAUTEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 30-11-2023
Shri Atul Upadhyay- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Harsh Gupta - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.19630/2023, this is first application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of
appellant-Mahendra Prasad Rautel.
The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 16/05/2023 passed
by Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012),
Anuppur in Special Case No. 54/2019 and appellant has been convicted for
offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(A)(1)(i), 506-II and 394 of IPC
and under Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years and 5
years and to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/-,
Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- for each offence respectively with usual default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not
properly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and committed
grave error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offence. Learned counsel
for appellant submits that initially in the FIR, prosecutrix has not made any
allegation any appellant regarding mobile snatching and friend of prosecutrix has
also not supported the prosecution case, hence, no offence under Section 394
of IPC is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success
of this appeal and final hearing of same will take considerable time, therefore, if
remaining custodial sentence has not been suspended, then the appeal filed by
appellant may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for
appellant prays for suspension of jail sentence and release of the appellant on
bail till the final disposal of the appeal.
O n the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the contention
raised by learned counsel for appellant and prays for rejection of said
application.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled
with the fact that initially in the FIR, prosecutrix has not made any allegation any
appellant regarding mobile snatching and friend of prosecutrix has also not
supported the prosecution case, hence, no offence under Section 394 of IPC is
made out against the appellant and according to listing policy the hearing of this
appeal will take time, the application is allowed and it is directed that the
execution of the remaining jail sentence passed against appellant - Mahendra
Prasad Rautel shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal
subject to depositing entire fine amount, if already not deposited and upon his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand
only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for securing his presence before the trial Court on 02/01/2024 and on
such further dates as may be fixed by trial Court it in this regard during the
pendency of this appeal.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
skt
