Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 5537 of 2024
(RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-05-2024
Mr. Lalit Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Alok Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the respondent - State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal, being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.8963 of 2024, which is first application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of the appellant.
This Criminal appeal assails the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
District Bhind (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2016; whereby, each of the
appellants has been convicted under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC,
Section 419 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 467 read with Section 120B
IPC, Section 468 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 471 read with Section
120B IPC and under Section 3(d)(1)(2) r/w Section 4 of the M.P. Recognized
Examination Act read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for
3 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-; RI for 2 years with a fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 5
years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for 2
years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs.500/- with
default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the learned Trial Court has
wrongly convicted the present appellant without properly appreciating the
evidence placed on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in
the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant
argued that the entire prosecution story is unnatural in the light of the fact that
the appellant was taking examination in place of Ameeni D/o Pradeep Rajawat,
however, the admit card was issued in the name of the appellant. Under such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant is solver and was taking exam
to benefit the person on whose behalf of he was taking exam. It is further
submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the
liberty so granted to them. Appellant has remained in custody during trial for
106 days and thereafter from the date of the impugned judgment. Present appeal
is likely to take a long time to come up for final hearing. Under these
circumstances, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the present appellants.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
without commenting on merits of the case, IA No.8963 of 2024 is hereby
allowed. Subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on
furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail. He is further directed to mark his appearance before the
Office of this Court first on 23.9.2024 and on subsequent dates given by the
Office in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
