Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11333 of 2023
(PANKAJ PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 09-10-2023
Shri Prakhar Naveria - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.21346 of 2023:
2. This is the first application seeking for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail filed on behalf of accused/appellant Pankaj Pandey, who has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.15,000/- and R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively with
default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.11.2022, the complainant lodged
a report to the effect that on 04.11.2022 her son had left the house with the
present appellant and did not return back. On 08.11.2022, one dead body was
found which was identified as son of the complainant. An FIR was registered.
After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and trial
commenced. After conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Baidhan, District Singrauli in S.T.No.24 of 2023, the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.
4. This application has been filed on the ground that the entire case is based
upon the circumstantial evidence. There is no direct connectivity of the present
appellant in commission of offence. He is in custody since 10.11.2022. Hearing
of the appeal will take a considerable long time. He is ready to abide by all the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/12/2023
10:08:36 AM
terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering the
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions
stating that there is ample evidence available against the appellant. He has drawn
attention of this Court to the statement of mother of the deceased namely Smt.
Meena Devi (PW/1) who has stated that the appellant was the person who had
taken her son on 04.11.2022 at about 10:00 AM. He had also asked for a bag
which was handed over to him. At 12:30 PM he returned back alone and
handed over the bag which contained one shoe of the deceased. He stated that
the deceased has gone with some other friend. But there is no explanation
being given by the appellant for handing over the bag containing one shoe of the
deceased. He was the person who had taken away the deceased on 04.11.2022
at 10:00 AM, therefore, it cannot be said the appellant had not committed any
offence. In view of the aforesaid, he has prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to
the material available on record, the statement of Smt. Meena Devi (PW/1) and
the custody period of the appellant, no case is made out to release the appellant
on bail.
7. I.A. No.21346 of 2023 is accordingly rejected.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/12/2023
10:08:36 AM
