Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajeet Kumar Yadav @ Papu Kentha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6808 of 2021
(AJEET KUMAR YADAV @ PAPU KENTHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-10-2023
Shri Y.P. Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.6954 of 2022.
2. This is the first application seeking for suspension of sentence and bail
filed on behalf of appellant/accused - Ajeet Kumar Yadav who has been
convicted under Sections 366, 376(2)(n)(i) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years, R.I. for ten years and R.I. for twelve
years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively and
further convicted under Section 3(2)(v) of the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations vide impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Singrauli in Special Case No.27 of 2021.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2016 a written complaint was
got registered by the complainant (father of the prosecutrix) that his daughter
has been missing since 26.08.2016. It was alleged that the applicant had
abducted the victim who is a minor girl and thereafter he forcibly committed
sexual intercourse with the victim. On the basis of the complaint, the police
lodged the report and the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the
present appellant. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the
appellant. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned
hereinabove.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 10/30/2023
12:53:19 PM
4. This application has been filed on the ground that the victim as well as the
appellant were known to each other. The statement of prosecutrix-PW/1 does
not reflect that any offence has been committed by the present appellant. The
victim has gone to Gujarat and remained with the present appellant in a rented
premises for a period of four months without raising any hue and cry and there
was no complaint made to anyone. The appellant has been in custody since
30.09.2021. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be
imposed by this Court while considering the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
5. State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions stating that therein
that the victim was minor at the time of commission of offence and the consent
of minor is of no value but he could not dispute the fact that victim has resided
with the present appellant for four months without raising any objection.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without
commenting upon the merits, we deem it just and necessary to enlarge the
appellant on bail. Consequently, I.A. No.6954 of 2022 is allowed.
7. Subject to deposit of the fine amounts, the remaining jail sentence of the
appellant/accused - Ajeet Kumar Yadav shall remain suspended and he is
directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial
Court/concerned Court on 18.01.2024 and thereafter on such other subsequent
dates as may be fixed in that behalf.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 10/30/2023
12:53:19 PM
Loretta
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 10/30/2023
12:53:19 PM
