Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh @ Shantilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6071 of 2023
(SANTOSH @ SHANTILAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 08-02-2024
Mr. Khuzema, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Bhuwan Gautam, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A. No.14434/2023, which is first application filed under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant Santosh @ Shantilal.
2. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 363,
366 and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC r/w section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and
sentenced to 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, 3 years R/.I. with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and 20 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with default
stipulations.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the case. The trial Court has wrongly
appreciated the age of the victim as she was major at the time of offence and by
her own will she accompanied the appellant and resided with him. She and her
father has also admitted that when she resided with the appellant she was calling
her parents and talking with them and her father has also admitted that her
daughter was calling her when she was residing with the appellant. Learned
counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant is in custody since
10.06.2017 and Section 5 r/w section 6 of POCSO Act was got amended in
2019 and as per the notification dated 16.08.2019, the minimum jail sentence
was enhanced from 10 years to 20 years before that as in the case of this
appellant the incident is of 06.02.2016 and at that time the minimum jail sentence
was 10 years. Thus, looking to the fact of the jail sentence and the facts of this
case, the remaining jail sentence of the appellants be suspended and he may be
released on bail.
4 . O n the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondent/State has opposed the application for suspension of sentence on the
ground that the judgment passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality and that is based on the evidence available against the
appellant. The crime committed by the appellant is heinous in nature and
looking to the offence and entire role of the appellant and the sentence so
awarded, it is not a fit case for enlarging the appellant on bail and suspending
his jail sentence. Hence, the application to suspend the substantial jail sentence
be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
5. Looking to the fact and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind
that the final hearing of this appeal shall take a long time, the application I.A.
No.14434/2023, is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine
amount, if already not deposited, appellant shall be released on bail, on
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) along with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial
Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on
20.08.2024, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this
regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VS
