Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12970 of 2023
(SANJEEV KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-02-2024
Shri B.K.Sharma with Shri Rajkumar Gatwar, - Advocate for the
appellant.
Smt. Abha Mishra - learned Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.21939/2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Appellant stands convicted under Sections 392 read with Section 397 of
IPC and Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo seven years'
RI with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 26.09.2023 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK), District
Datia (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial No.300038 of 2016.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that learned trial Court has
committed an error in convicting appellant for offence punishable under
Sections 392 read with Section 397 of IPC and Section 13 of MPDVPK Act.
Learned counsel referring to statements of Kailash Narayan Gupta (PW1),
Asha Gupta (PW2), Varun Gupta (PW4), submit that the complainant has not
identified the appellant as assailant who committed dacoity at his residence.
Despite there being no evidence of appellant's participating in the act of dacoity,
learned trial Court committed error in convicting appellant for offence
punishable U/s 392 read with Section 397 of IPC and Section 13 of MPDVPK
Act. Learned counsel further contends that the witnesses relating to seizure of
incriminating article at the instance of appellant did not support the prosecution.
Identification of ornaments is doubtful. Therefore, no offence was made out
against the appellant.
The impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is based on
assumption, conjecture and surmises. There are material contractions and
omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Appellant has undergone judicial
custody for more than Six months. The appellant was on bail during trial and he
did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Fine amount has already been
deposited by the appellant. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near
future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail
sentence of appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and also subject to
deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for their appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 01.03.2024 and on further dates as may be
directed by the Registry in that regard.
Accordingly, I.A. No.21939/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Rks
