Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
1 CRA-4456-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4456 of 2024
(PANKAJ SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 15-01-2025
Shri Vivek Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Juned Ahmed Khan -
Advocate for appellants.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the respondent /
State.
Shri Vinay Joshi - Advocate for complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.14623/2024, second application under Section 430 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 the appellant No.1 Pankaj Singh S/o Devendra Singh Gautam .
The appellant stands convicted under Section 420, 467 and 471 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 07 years RI with fine of
Rs.1,000/-; 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-; and 10 years RI with fine of
Rs.1,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. 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 anomalies. Prem
Mishra (PW-2) in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that after the
2 CRA-4456-2024
cheque of Rs.75 Lakhs got bounced, appellant No.1 Pankaj has given another
cheque of Rs.45 Lakhs, which again got dishonoured. He further submits that
as per mutual agreement, complainant received Rs.45 Lakhs in cash from the
appellant. Thus, the version of this witness that total amount due towards the
appellant is Rs.75 Lakhs is false. Civil dispute has been given colour of
criminality. There is no evidence to show that the appellant has forged any
document so that conviction under Section 420, 467 and 471 of IPC is bad in
law. Apart this, complainant and appellant have also entered into
compromise, which has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this
Bench. It is further submitted that this 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. Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has not
disputed the factum of compromise.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, 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.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and
circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that possibility of final
hearing of this appeal in near future is bleak, without expressing any
3 CRA-4456-2024
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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh 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 19/02/2025
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 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.
4 CRA-4456-2024
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.
I.A.Nos.15583/2024, 14624/2024, 19370/2024 and 20058/2024, which
are the applications for urgent hearing also stand disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
