[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2025
1 CRA-7103-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7103 of 2025
(VINOD KUMAR JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 04-12-2025
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhinav Shrivastava - Advocate for Lokayukt.
Heard on admission.
Appeal appears to be arguable, hence, admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.17620/2025 , which is first application filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C./ Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
present appellant.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 18.07.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge (PC Act), District Sagar (M.P.), in SC LOK
No.03/2024, whereby present appellant has been convicted for offence
punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act and
sentenced to undergo four years RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulation.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of present
appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is
innocent. He is in custody for a period of 04 months and 20 days. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 06-12-2025
13:26:47
2 CRA-7103-2025
allegation of prosecution is that the present appellant for giving the final
receipt demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- but that amount has been
given to the present appellant for the expenses incurred in weighing paddy in
the Cooperative Society and in that respect D.W.2 Chhatar Singh and D.W.3
Rajendra Dubey have categorically stated before the learned trial Court that
they have collected the money and given it to Virendra Sahu to deposit it
with the Cooperative Society and that money has been given to the present
appellant for depositing it before the Cooperative Society. As far as demand
is concerned, original voice recorded in the instrument has not been sent for
lab analysis. Only CD make out from such instrument has been sent for
analysis which is the secondary evidence. Therefore, report of the lab in that
respect is not admissible at all in the evidence. Moreover, the CD was not
supported by the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Therefore, the entire evidence in that respect is inadmissible before the Court
but learned trial Court without considering this aspect convicted the present
appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the recent judgment of
Supreme Court dated 17.4.2025 in the case of Sohail Gohar Vs. The State of
M.P. in Criminal Appeal No.2058 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No.5013 of 2025 and submits that keeping in view the evidence of defense
witness, the entire case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. The final
disposal of this appeal will take considerable time. The appellant is ready to
comply with the conditions as may be imposed by the Court. Therefore, it is
prayed that the remaining jail sentence of present appellant may be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 06-12-2025
13:26:47
3 CRA-7103-2025
suspended and he may be released on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for Lokayukt has vehemently opposed the
prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and prayed for rejection of
application on the ground that there is ample evidence with regard to demand
and receipt of illegal gratification by the present appellant. 65B Certificate is
Exhibit P/47 and P/48 in respect of the CD made out from the original
instrument and the lab report is Exhibit P/60. Therefore, the CD is
admissible in evidence. Voice in the recorder was of the present appellant
and that voice has been very well identified by the complainant as voice of
present appellant. Therefore, demand has been proved. As far as receipt of
illegal gratification is concerned that has also been proved. It is not clarified
by the defense that in what proportion amount was gathered from various
agriculturist and all such agriculturist have not been examined before the
trial Court. On merits, the case of prosecution is very strong. Therefore, no
case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out. In view of the
aforesaid, he has prayed for rejection of this application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Though in the case of Sohail Gohar (supra), it is laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court that in a case of fixed period of sentence, liberal approach should
be adopted unless there are exceptional circumstances, therefore, the facts,
circumstances and evidence on record is to be considered at the time of
considering the application for suspension of sentence. At the time of
considering application for suspension of setence, the evidence and material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 06-12-2025
13:26:47
4 CRA-7103-2025
on record are important and it is to be weigh over the conclusion whether the
evidence is sufficient for conviction or not. In a recent judgment in the case
of Jamnalal vs. State of Rajasthan and another in Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.69 of 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"10. One would have expected the High Court hearing an application under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence to examine whether prima
facie there was anything palpable on the record to indicate if the accused had a
fair chance of overturning the conviction. In Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar
Chaudhary and Another, (2023) 6 SCC 123, this Court had the following to say
on the scope of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
"23. The principle underlying the theory of criminal
jurisprudence in our country is that an accused is presumed to be
innocent till he is held guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Once the accused is held guilty, the presumption of innocence gets
erased. In the same manner, if the accused is acquitted, then the
presumption of innocence gets further fortified.
24. From perusal of Section 389 CrPC, it is evident that save
and except the matter falling under the category of sub-section (3)
neither any specific principle of law is laid down nor any criteria
has been fixed for consideration of the prayer of the convict and
further, having a judgment of conviction erasing the presumption
leaning in favour of the accused regarding innocence till contrary
recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction, and in the
aforesaid background, there happens to be a fine distinction
between the prayer for bail at the pre-conviction as well as the
post-conviction stage viz. Sections 437, 438, 439 and 389(1)
CrPC.
33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the
endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to see as to
whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the
trial court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict
stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid
question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we
shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be
entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should
not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the
conclusion of the appeal, which usually takes very long for
decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 06-12-2025
13:26:47
5 CRA-7103-2025
ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is
to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words,
something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the
record, on the basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie
satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The
appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of
Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes
here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a
correct approach."
17. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Others, (2002) 9 SCC 364
this Court observed as follows:
"10. On perusal of the record and on consideration of the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we are of the view that in the context of the facts and
circumstances of the case the High Court was in error in passing
the order releasing the respondents on bail. The High Court has
neither given any reason nor has indicated any exceptional
circumstance for granting bail to the respondents. In the above
circumstances, it is difficult for us to even surmise the
circumstance which prompted the learned Single Judge to consider
the accused persons to be entitled to the discretionary relief of bail
pending the appeal. The principle is well settled that in
considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious
offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the court
should consider the relevant factors like the nature of the
accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the
crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after
they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of
murder. Our attention has not been drawn to any material which
would show that the learned Single Judge took into consideration
the relevant factors while passing the bail order. We refrain
ourselves from making any observation touching on merits of the
case lest it may prejudice any of the parties. Suffice it to state that
we do not consider this a fit case for grant of bail to the
respondents during pendency of the appeal filed by them."
Though said in the context of Section 302 IPC, it applies with equal force to a
case of the present nature under the POCSO Act, also.
Thus, while considering the evidence on record and attending facts and
circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits of this
case, I am of the view that the case of prosecution is on strong footing.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present appellant
6 CRA-7103-2025
does not deserve to be granted suspension of sentence at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A. No.17620 of 2025 is hereby rejected.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
