Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulab vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-12040-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 12040 of 2024
(GULAB Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 21-01-2025
Shri Govind Pal Singh Songara - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Madhusudan Yadav GA for the State.
Learned counsel for the State informs that notice with regard to
filing of this appeal in compliance with mandate of Section 15-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 has been duly served on the victim.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.17556 of 2024 , first application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under
Section 3(2)(5-A), 3(1)(w-i) of SC and ST Act and sections 354-A and
506 (part-II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
1 yeas with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation on each count;
vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29/07/2024 passed by
Special Judge ( SC & ST Act ) Shajapur (M.P.) in SC ATR no. 169 of
2021.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 21-01-2025
19:42:15
2 CRA-12040-2024
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that learned trial Court has
committed an error in convicting the appellant for the alleged offence.
The impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is based on
assumption, conjecture and surmises. The learned Trial Court has
committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellant
without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses.
Learned counsel further submits that leaned trial Court has committed
error in rejecting the defence of the accused. No independent witness
was examined, despite the alleged incident had occurred at public place.
During trial, the appellant was released on bail. He has not misused the
liberty granted to him. Learned trial Court suspended his sentence of
imprisonment under section 389(3) of Cr.P.C. There is no likelihood of
hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel
prays that execution of remaining sentence of imprisonment of the
appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
application.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without
commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, the
application is allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining sentence of imprisonment of appellant shall remain
suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on
3 CRA-12040-2024
bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) 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
21/04/2025 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 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 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
4 CRA-12040-2024
High Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of
CrPC/491 of BNSS 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 IA stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
