Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
1 CRA-8002-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8002 of 2024
(ANIL MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
CRA No. 8861 of 2024
Dated : 06-08-2025
Mr. Ajay Mishra - Senior Advocate with Ms. Pankhuri Vishwakarma -
Advocate for appellant in CRA No.8002 of 2024.
Mr. Deependra Kumar Mishra - Advocate for appellant in CRA
No.8861 of 2024.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dubey - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Appeals, being arguable, are admitted for hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.16989 of 2024, first application under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail to appellant- Anil Mishra and I.A. No.18850 of
2024, first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to
appellant- Praveen Kumar Bajpai.
2. These Criminal Appeals assail the judgment dated 06.07.2024 passed
in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2021 by the learned First Additional Sessions
Judge, Panna, District Panna, whereby present appellants have been
convicted for offences under Section 420/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/- each, Section 467 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, Section
468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/-
2 CRA-8002-2024
each, Section 471/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years with
fine of Rs.1,000/- each and Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, respectively, with default
stipulations.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the present appellants that
the finger print expert report has been sought by the prosecution but it has
not been filed and got exhibited by the prosecution for the reason best known
to it. It is also submitted that out of five years they have completed one year
and one month of incarceration. It is also submitted that the star witness of
the prosecution namely Ramkishore Gangele (PW-3) has stated that the duty
of Anil Mishra as a Field Officer is to receive the applications and to
forward it to the Branch Manager and the same has been got verified by the
Branch Manager and the Advocate of the Bank. It is also submitted that in
the light of the statement of Ramkishore Gangele (PW-3) there is no serious
role assigned to the appellant Anil Mishra as well as appellant Praveen
Kumar Bajpai, who is a beneficiary. The trial Court itself has verified the
signatures of both the appellants on the documents and has convicted them
but that is not sufficient especially in condition where the finger print Expert
report has been obtained by the prosecution but has not been filed before the
trial Court. It is further pointed out that there are contradictions and
omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Final hearing of
these appeals are not possible in near future. It is also submitted that the
present appellants are ready and willing to abide by any condition which may
be imposed by the Court. It is also submitted that in a similar case being
3 CRA-8002-2024
CRA No.8003 of 2024 by order dated 30.05.2025 a Coordinate Bench of this
Court has granted bail to the appellant Anil Mishra. Learned counsels for the
appellants have relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bherulal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in SLP (Crl.)
No.8388 of 2024. In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the present
appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
applications on the ground that as many as 14 cases have been registered
earlier against the present appellant Anil Mishra and there are ample
evidence against both the appellants, therefore, no ground for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to them is made out.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bherulal (supra) has held as
under:-
"5. The law is well settled that if the sentence imposed by the trial court is
for a fixed term, then ordinarily the appellate court should consider the plea for
suspension of sentence liberally, unless there are any exceptional
circumstances emerging from the record of the case to decline such relief.
There is nothing observed by the High Court in its impugned order as to why
the plea for suspension of sentence deserved to be declined. The High Court
has not said anything about any exceptional circumstances".
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the cases and
keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
aforesaid case, without commenting on merit of the cases, I.A. No.16989 of
2024 and I.A. No.18850 of 2024 are hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of
fine amounts, if not already deposited, and on furnishing personal bond of
4 CRA-8002-2024
Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand Only) each with a solvent surety each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the
remaining jail sentence of appellants Anil Mishra and Praveen Kumar Bajpai
shall remain suspended and they be released on bail. The present appellants
are further directed to mark their appearance before the trial Court/concerned
Court on 07.10.2025 and on subsequent dates given by the trial Court in this
regard, till final disposal of these appeals.
List these cases for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
