Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-6660-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6660 of 2023
(RADHESHYAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 16-04-2025
Shri Arun Kumar Verma advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vinod Thakur public prosecutor for State.
Heard on IA No. 15534/2024, second application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C./Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagraik Suraksha Sanhita moved on
behalf of appellant-Radheshyam Malviya seeking suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail. The first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 08.05.2024.
Appellant stood convicted under Sections 363, 342, 354 of IPC and
Section 9(m)/10 of POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo 03 years', 06
months, 03 years and 05 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
1,000/-, 200/-, 2000/- and 2000/- respectively with default stipulation vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.2023, passed by
Special Judge (POCSO Act) Ratlam (M.P.) in SC 73/2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 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 appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence
properly. The learned trial Committed error in relying evidence of witnesses
ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in their evidence.
There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. The appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 16-04-2025
17:23:10
2 CRA-6660-2023
remained in custody from 25.06.2021 till today. Thus he has completed more
than 50% of the sentence of imprisonment. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining sentence of imprisonment of the
appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
suspension application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence and prays
for its rejection.
The contentions of appellant has prima facie substance which deserve
consideration on merit. The appellant remained in judicial custody from
25.06.2021 till the date of impugned judgment i.e. 20.04.2023. Thereafter, he
i s undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date of impugned
judgment i.e. 20.04.2023 till date. He has already undergone incarceration
for more than 3 years and 8 months.
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 - Radheshyam 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.1,00,000/-(Rupees One
Lac 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 23.06.2025 ,
3 CRA-6660-2023
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 appellants
shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 15534/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
4 CRA-6660-2023
BDJ
