Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 13014 of 2023
(SHAILENDRA BUNDELA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-02-2024
Shri Sushil Goswami Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A.No.1469 of 2024, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant-Shailendra Bundela.
Present appellant stood convicted under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 343
and 506(2) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with a fine of
Rs.2,000/-, RI for 15 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- RI for one year with a fine
of Rs.500/- and RI for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with
default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
27.09.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.)
in ST No.04 of 2019.
The present appellant so far has undergone actual jail sentence of one
year and one month, as transpired during the course of arguments.
As per prosecution story, complainant/father of the prosecutrix reported
to the police station to the effect that on 17.11.2018 at about 07:00 in the
evening his daughter/prosecutrix had gone to answer the call of nature in the
field but did not return. He searched intensely but yielded no result. He had
suspicion that his daughter/prosecutrix may have gone along with Shailendra
Singh Bundela of the village and Pradeep Shukla of village Dharmpura. On the
basis of oral report made by the complainant, Police Station Rawatpura
registered a Missing Person's Report bearing No.4 of 2018 and started enquiry
into it. During the course of such enquiry on 23.11.2018, father and elder uncle
of the prosecutrix in their statements stated that they had seen Shailendra S/o
Pratipal Singh Bundela of Behta village at Lahar Bus Stand getting his missing
daughter away on motorcycle. When he cried then on seeing them approaching,
he raised the speed of motorcycle and got the prosecutrix away on the strength
of the enticement of solemnization of marriage. On the basis of these
statements, FIR was registered and investigation was set into motion. Upon
completion of investigation including collection of evidence, recovery and
recording of statements of prosecutrix, challan was filed. The case was
committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court on appreciation
of evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the present appellant as
mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the present appellant while taking exception to the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the
Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct
perspective. The judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. Present
appellant has falsely been implicated in the matter whereas he has not committed
any crime. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of
the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that present appellant has so
far undergone incarceration of one year and one month. In fact, it is a case of
consent and prosecutrix had gone with the appellant on her own volition and
they resided in a room near Bus Stand in Lahar, district Bhind for seven days
like husband and wife and during this period, she never raised any alarm. That
apart, the MLC does not suggest any external or internal injuries on the body of
the prosecutrix and that prosecutrix was subjected to forcible intercourse. The
appeal is of the year 2023 and is not likely to be decided in the near future. On
these grounds, learned counsel submits that the present appellant may be
extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
P e r contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the fact that present appellant so far has suffered
incarceration of one year and one month and that the appeal is of the year 2023
and is not likely to be decided in the near future, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances, we are of the view that present appellant is entitled to the benefit
of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1469 of 2024 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant-Shailendra Bundela shall remain
suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on
bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court.
Present appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court
first on 30.05.2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this
behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
