Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2034 of 2024
(RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 04-03-2024
Shri Rishishek Bohare- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Dheeraj Budholiya- Panel Lawyer for respondent- State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.2897 of 2024, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Rahul Parihar seeking suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th of
January, 2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in ST No.111 of 2023.
Learned Counsel for the appellant, referring to the statement of victim
(PW-7), submits that there are material inconsistencies, contradictions and
omissions in the statements of victim. The learned Trial Court has committed an
error in relying on such inconsistent testimony. No offence of taking or enticing
is made out from the evidence available on record. Learned counsel further
submits that 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. The appellant was on bail during trial and
did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Fine amount has already been
deposited by appellant. The jail sentence of appellant was suspended by learned
Trial Court under Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C for a period of one month from the
date of the judgment i.e. 29.01.2024. 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 appellant may be
enlarged on bail.
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 Rahul Parihar 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). The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 22.04.2024
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 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, IA No.2897 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
MKB
