Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2025
1 CRA-260-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 260 of 2025
(GOVIND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 25-02-2025
Appellant by Shri Abhay Saraswat - Advocate.
Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta
- Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Heard on the question of admission.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A.No.1547 of 2025 , first application under Section 430 (1)
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389 (1)
of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on
behalf of appellant No.1 - Govind S/o Mansingh.
Vide judgment and order dated 27.12.2024 passed in Sessions Trial
No.26 of 2021 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat District Alirajpur
(MP), the present appellant stands convicted under Sections 420/34, 467/34,
468/34 and 471/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/-,
seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/-
and seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively with usual default
stipulations.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while taking exception to
this impugned judgment, submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
2 CRA-260-2025
falsely implicated in this matter. Learned counsel submits that the present
appellant has not committed any forgery or fraud. He has been allegedly
found carrying in his truck bearing registration number GJ-18 AU-7292,
minor mineral (sand) in excess of quantity as was permitted by ETP.
Learned counsel submits that the forging of royalty receipts is against the
Mining Inspector Shri Chain Singh Damor. During trial, the appellant was
on bail and he is truck owner and regular bail was granted to him. The trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses.
Impugned judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures and has been
passed ignoring serious infirmities and anomalies. There are no criminal
antecedents against the present appellant. The appeal being of the year 2025
is not likely to be heard finally in near future. There is a strong case in favour
of the appellant and has fair chance of success. Hence, under such
circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of
bail.
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 present appellant. The prayer is opposed on the ground that the
appellant is the beneficiary of the forgery of receipts and is acting hand-in-
glove with the Mining Inspector Chain Singh Damor.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3 CRA-260-2025
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and
circumstances of the case and coupled with the fact that possibility of final
hearing of this appeal in near future is bleak, and when the main allegation of
forgery the ETP receipt is against Mining Inspector Chain Singh Damor, who
was not even arraigned as an accused though named as prosecution witness
as PW-19, 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 upon his furnishing a 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 conditions:-
(1) The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 02/04/2025
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
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
4 CRA-260-2025
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.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
IA No.1546 of 2025 , an application for urgent hearing also stands
disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
