Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1 CRA-10272-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10272 of 2024
(RAMCHANDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 31-01-2025
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with Shri Akshay Johnmathew -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Santosh Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A.No.32881/2024, which is repeat (second) application filed on
behalf of the appellant- Ramchandra for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
First application of the present appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 21.10.2024 bearing I.A.No.26440/2024 with liberty to file afresh
along with the guidelines/bye-laws/service rules regarding the jurisdiction and
responsibilities of the branch managers.
The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 409 of
IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, under
Section 420/34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of
Rs.10,000/- and under Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and
sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulations.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not
properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record while
convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. It is further contended by the
senior counsel that there was utter failure on the part of the prosecution to prove
the charges yet the present appellant has been convicted. It is also contended by
the senior counsel that its a fixed term sentence and he has suffered incarceration
2 CRA-10272-2024
of more than five months as of now as he is in custody since 14.08.2024 against
the sentence of four years including more than three months from dismissal of his
earlier application dated 21.10.2024 bearing I.A.No.26440/2024. It is contended
by the counsel that as per the allegations leveled by the prosecution, the funds
which were made available by the Government for crops insurance, were
embezzled. It is also contended by the counsel that the appellant was keeping post
of Branch Manager of Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Branch Rahatgoan
and the bank had only responsibility to transfer the funds to the concerned society
which were received from the Government for the aforesaid purposes and the same
was done. It is also contended by the counsel that present appellant had no
concerned with the distribution of the said funds by the society as the said exercise
was to be carried out by the society.
It is contended by the counsel that in the cases of appeal arising from the
judgment of conviction, the sentence was suspended and accused were enlarged
on bail and this fact has already been taken note of in the decisions of Apex Court
in the case of N. Ramamurthy vs. State by Central Bureau of Investigation in
Criminal Appeal Nos.751-752 of 2019 and Nanhe Lal Verma vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.4763/2024 decided on 25.11.2024 . Therefore,
senior counsel submits that considering the aforesaid and as the appellant has
suffered incarceration of five months, deserves to be enlarged on bail particularly
in view of the testimony of Suresh Sanwle (PW-14).
Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and
submits that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial Court on the basis
of proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. Thus, sentence of
the appellant should not be suspended.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3 CRA-10272-2024
It is undisputed that there is sentence of four years and appellant is in jail
since 14.08.2024, therefore, he has suffered incarceration of five months as of
now. This appeal is of the year 2024 and final hearing of this appeal will take
time.
In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit
case to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and to release him on bail.
Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is
allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the
trial Court concerned on 23.04.2025 and on such other dates as may be fixed by
the trial Court in that regard during pendency of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
