Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Kumar Dohre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1169 of 2017
(JITENDRA KUMAR DOHRE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 28-02-2024
Shri Anand Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.3827 of 2024, sixth application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant- Jitendra Kumar Dohre.
Present appellant stood convicted under Sections 4 of POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 14 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2017
passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind District Guna in Sessions
Trial No.263/2016.
The present appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of more than 07
years, as stated by learned counsel for the appellant.
A s per prosecution story, on 26.11.2016, at about 06:30 pm, the
prosecutrix, who was deaf and dumb, had gone to ease herself towards chari
out of the village, then the accused committed bad things with her. She came
crying from there to her mother and explained her mother about the incident and
the accused by gesture. Thereafter, one Vimlesh told her mother that when he
asked the accused, the accused said that a mistake was made and the accused
ran away from the village. The prosecutrix also explained to her father and aunt
by gesture. Due to night, on the next day the prosecutrix along with her mother
went to the police station where her mother lodged the report. The FIR was
registered and investigation was set in motion. Upon completion of investigation
including recording of statements, collection of evidence and necessary
formalities, challan was filed. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of evidence
placed on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellant as mentioned
above.
Learned counsel for 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. It is submitted that the present
appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted
that present appellant has so far undergone incarceration of more than seven
years. It is further submitted that the appeal being of 2017 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.
Per 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 is not
inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
present appellant on merits, however, regard being had to the only fact that
present appellant so far has already undergone incarceration of more than seven
years coupled with the fact that the appeal which is of the year 2017 is not likely
to be decided in the near future, 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.3827 of 2024 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of present appellant 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, with following further
conditions :-
1. Appellant shall mark his presence before the concerned
police station twice in every week.
2. Appellant shall not move to the place of resident of
complainant/prosecutrix at any point of time. Besides, if appellant is
found to be involved in any such activity much less criminal activity
causing threat to peace and tranquility in the area or life and liberty of
the complainant/prosecutrix and others in any way, the
respondent/State as well as complainant/prosecutrix shall be at liberty
to approach this Court for cancellation of his bail.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
29/05/2024 and thereafter, on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this
behalf.
Accordingly, the 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
Aman
