Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pritesh Bindal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2025
1 CRA-1326-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1326 of 2024
(PRITESH BINDAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-01-2025
Shri Manu Maheshwari - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Tarun Pagare, Public Prosecutor for State.
Shri Raghvendra Singh Bais, counsel for the complainant.
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 IA No. 11860 of 2024, first application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the appellant Pritesh Bindal seeking
suspension of remaining sentence of imprisonment and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Sections 419, 420-B, 467, 468 and
471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- and
5 years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence u/ss 420-B, 467, 468 and
471 IPC each with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 29.11.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge & Special
Court (Electricity Act), Indore in S.T.No. 575/2013.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that evidence adduced by
the prosecution is shaky. The impugned judgment passed by learned Trial
Court is based on assumption, conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel
further contends that appellant has suffered incarceration for about 1 year and
5 months, out of 5 years maximum sentence which is imposed under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 08-01-2025
18:55:10
2 CRA-1326-2024
different sections. It is Sunil Sahu who allegedly introduced the
complainant, Naveen Vaid with Pritesh Bindal. Sunil Sahu has not been
examined. Similarly sister of the complainant Sudha Midarwal who used to
collect the rent has also not been examined. Counsel submits that he has fair
chances of success in this appeal. The appeal being of the year 2024 is not
likely to be heard finally in near future. On these grounds, learned counsel
prays that the execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be
suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per-contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposed the
application on the ground that impugned judgment is based on due
appreciation of evidence available on record, therefore no case for
suspension of sentence is made out.
Counsel for the complainant opposed the application on the ground
that present appellant impersonated himself as Ranjeet Saluja who initially
obtained the disputed property on rent from Naveen Vaid and thereafter got
executed the sale deed of the same, and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the factual backdrop, custodial period and also the fact
that final hearing of the appeal will take considerable long time, but without
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 sentence of imprisonment of the appellant 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
3 CRA-1326-2024
Thousand) 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
28/01/2025 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 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 nonappearance 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 /
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].
4 CRA-1326-2024
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 stand allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
CC as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
MK
