Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1961 of 2024
(JITENDRA YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 23-02-2024
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Purshottam Tanwar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No. 2755/2024, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant- Jitendra Yadav seeking suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo two years' RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 7/8 of POCSO
Act and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-, with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2024
passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act,
District Guna (M.P.) in Special Case No.55/2021.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment
passed by learned trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures and
surmises. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and
sentencing the present appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence
properly. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that learned Trial Court
has ignored the factum of previous enmity between the parties over the loan
transaction. Delay in FIR was also not considered in proper perspective. The
jail sentence of appellant was suspended under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 23-02-2024
06:25:04 PM
2
by learned trial Court up to 29.02.2024. Fine amount has already been
deposited by the appellant. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal
in the near future. On these premised submissions, learned counsel prays that
the execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he
may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the instant appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent State opposes the application
and prays 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 for compliance with
following conditions:-
(1). The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2). He shall appear before the Trial Court on 08.04.2024 and on such
further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed for
such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on his/her/their
behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from attendance
to the appellant on any date, on sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII
Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
Where the appellant does not appear on the date of his appearance
before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown, the
Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable warrants to secure
his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court. The Trial Court
shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC against such appellant and his
surety without any reference to this Court and without any impediment of the
order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court
Rules, 2008].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the appellant shall be
forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to
the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2755/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Vijay
