Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
1 CRA-2504-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2504 of 2024
(RAJESH PARASHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 29-01-2025
Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi- Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent/Lokayukt.
Heard on I.A. No. 23758 of 2024 , third application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by the
appellant.
The appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Special
Judge (PC Act) Shivpuri in SC LOK No.01 of 2022, whereby, appellant has
been convicted under Section 07 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo three
years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- and four years RI with fine of Rs.5000/-
respectively with default stipulation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant that
appellant is in custody since 06.02.2024. Earlier (first application) he has
been enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 22.03.2024, but he has not
misused the liberty granted by this Court. Thereafter, the second bail
application was dismissed as withdrawn without considering the merits of
the case vide order dated 23.09.2024. Thereafter, this third bail application is
filed. It is also submitted that in this case the complainant has died, therefore,
2 CRA-2504-2024
he has not been examined on behalf of prosecution. Other two relevant
witnesses on the point of the prosecution, K.P. Singh (PW-9) and Lokendra
Singh (PW-10) have also not supported the story of prosecution. Therefore,
the demand of bribe is not established. It is also submitted that there is
identification of voice in the recorder, which is not considered by the trial
Court. The learned counsel for the appellant drew attention of this Court to
paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment wherein, while discussing the
statement of Suraj Bhan (PW-2), it is stated that he admitted that he has not
compared the transcript and voice recording. It is also submitted that
Ex.P/31 is the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, but it is no
where stated in the certificate that who has obtained the call details and who
has recorded the call details from CD? In these circumstances, on merits, the
present appellant deserves bail. He also relied upon the judgment in the case
of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra
Pradesh and another as reported in [(2015) 10 Suprement Court Cases 152)
wherein the demand not found to be proved as complainant had died before
trial and evidence of other witnesses were not sufficient to prove demand,
though recovery was proved. In such circumstances the benefit of doubt was
extended to the appellant. It is stated by the learned counsel that similar
situation is in the present case. Hence, counsel for the appellant prays to
suspend the jail sentence and grant bail to the appellant.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lokayukt
has opposed the prayer on the ground that the trial Court has considered all
objections raised before it and it is found that the appellant is guilty of the
3 CRA-2504-2024
offence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on
merits of the case, IA No.23758/2024 is hereby allowed. Subject to
depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and the appellant
furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with a
solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail. The appellant is further directed to
mark his appearance before the Registry of this Court first on 10/03/2025
and on subsequent dates given by the Registry in this regard, till final
disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mani
