Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeevan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
1 CRA-14411-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 14411 of 2024
(JEEVAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 30-04-2025
Appellant by Shri Virendra Sharma - Learned Senior Advocate
appearing along with Shri Satish Yadav - Advocate.
Respondent No.1 - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Rahul Solanki -
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Respondent No.2 - victim / prosecutrix by Shri Rajeev Savant -
Advocate.
Heard on I.A.No.20658 of 2024, first application under Section 389 (1)
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 = Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of
bail on behalf of appellant - Jeevan S/o Ramesh Banjara .
Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2024
passed in Sessions Trial No.60 of 2023 by learned Second Additional
Sessions Judge And Special Judge (under POCSO Act), Mahidpur, District
Ujjain (MP), the appellant stands convicted under Section 9 (m) read with
Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as also
under Section 3 (1) (w-i) and 3 (1) (w-ii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo five
years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/- and two years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-
and two years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively with usual default
stipulations.
2 CRA-14411-2024
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, while taking
exception to this impugned judgment, submits that appellant is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in this offence. Learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its
right perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in the
statement of the witnesses. The material defects which have surfaced in the
cross examination of the prosecutrix have been ignored. Her parents have
not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that previous enmity
has been proved and for this, he invited attention of this Court towards
paragraph 71 of the impugned judgment. Impugned judgment suffers from
surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the appellant is suffering
incarceration since 02.11.2023 and he has been sentenced to undergo RI for
five years and out of which he has already suffered jail incarceration of
about one year and five months. It is further submitted that the appeal being
of the year 2024 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. There is a
strong case in favour of the appellant and fair chances of success. Hence,
under such circumstances, prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and
grant of bail.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - victim / prosecutrix pleads no
objection.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -
State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no exception
can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail, regard
being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the
3 CRA-14411-2024
present appellant. Learned counsel submits that the minor victim is near
about ten years of age at the time of incident and she has supported the
prosecution case. Hence, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the
application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, looking to the evidence in
entirety as well as custody of the appellant coupled with the fact that
possibility of final hearing of this appeal in near future is bleak, without
expressing any conclusive opinion on merits, I find it to be a fit case to
suspend the remaining custodial sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, application is allowed. Subject to deposit of fine amount,
if not already deposited the remaining jail sentence during the pendency of
the appeal is hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant be released on
bail on his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court for compliance with following -
(1) The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 17/06/2025
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
4 CRA-14411-2024
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 do 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 Cr.P.C. /
Section 491 of BNSS, 2023 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, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed off.
IA No.203 of 2025 , an application under Section 338 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, also stands disposed off.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
