Madhya Pradesh High Court

Karan Jatav vs State Of M.P. on 9 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR CRA No. 882 of 2012 (KARAN JATAV Vs STATE OF M.P.)

Dated : 09-05-2024 Shri Om Prakash Mathur, learned counsel for appellant.

Ms. Kalpana Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on I.A.No.4461 of 2024, an application seeking exemption from filing of affidavit.

For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed. Also Heard on IA No.4459 of 2024, second application under Section

389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Karan Jatav seeking suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant stood convicted under Section 392 IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo RI for five-five years with a fine of Rs.5,000- 5,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.11.2012 passed by Special Judge [MPDVPK Act], Shivpuri (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial No.49 of 2011.

Appellant Karan Jatav was granted suspension of sentence and released on bail vide order dated 07.01.2013 passed on IA No.11698/2012. He was

directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 01.04.2013 and on such further dated as may be directed by the Registry. Appellant remain absent on 19.01.2015 in compliance with the order dated 30.06.2014, therefore, warrant of arrest was issued to secure his presence vide order dated 12.04.2016. The warrant remain unserved with the information that appellant is incarcerated at Central Jail, Gwalior, therefore, production warrant was issued. Appellant is appearing through production warrant before the Registry.

Learned counsel for the appellant Karan Jatav referring to judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed in Special Case No.700010/2015 by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, District Gwalior submits that as per the judgment, appellant Karan was in custody since 06.11.2014 till 19.05.2017. Learned counsel contends that since appellant was in custody in other matter, he could not inform the Registry through his counsel and warrant of arrest and later production warrant was issued for his appearance. The absence was not deliberate or mala fide, his absence may be condoned.

Considered. Perused the record.

The reason for absence of appellant on 19.01.2015 appears to be bona

fide, therefore, order dated 28.02.2024 is recalled and his absence on 19.01.2015 is condoned. Appellant be released from custody forthwith. His earlier bail bonds are restored. The appellant shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 07.08.2024 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Registry.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE

Vijay