Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsingh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 4182 of 2024
(RAMSINGH YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 29-05-2024
Shri Amin Khan- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Lokendra Shrivastava- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.6525/2024, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant- Ramsingh Yadav seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo three years' RI with fine of 2,000/-, U/s 467 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-, U/s 468 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- and U/s 471 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo one year's RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2023 passed
by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District- Vidisha (M.P.) in ST No.05
of 2018.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has
committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellant without
appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are material contractions
and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant
Ramsingh Yadav contends that there is no evidence with regard to forgery of
sale deed (Ex.P-1). The handwriting expert Rahul Jha was not examined before
the Trial Court, therefore, the accused was deprived of his valuable right to
cross-examine the handwriting expert. Further, the report of handwriting expert
suffers from inconsistencies. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did
not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Appellant is aged around 66 years. The
appellant remained in custody of 1 year 9 months and 19 days during trial and
he is undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date of judgment i.e. 15-
09-2023. He has already undergone almost 2 year 6 months of jail incarceration.
Fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant. 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 he
may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the
application and prayed 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 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 12/08/2024
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, I.A. No.6525/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Vijay
