Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi @ Ravindra Pal Sing Bhagel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-3978-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 3978 of 2024
(RAVI @ RAVINDRA PAL SING BHAGEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 05-03-2025
Shri Surendra Tuteja - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vinod Thakur GA for the State.
1. Heard on I.A. No.16666/2024, which is second application filed
under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf
of appellant- Ravi @ Ravindra Pal Singh.
2. The trial Court has convicted the appellant under sections 419 read
with 120-B, 420 read with 120-B, 467 read with 120-B, 468 read with 120-B,
471read with 120-B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 2 year, 3 year, 4
year, 3 year and 1 year of R.I. with fine of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.3,000/-,
Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulation respectively,
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2024 passed
by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in S.T. No.425/2015.
3. As per the case of prosecution, co-accused Akhilesh Kumar
alongwith Ravi alias Ravindra Paal (appellant) hired people to write Forest
Guard Examination, 2015 conducted by M.P. Professional Examination
Board in place of actual candidates in return of money.
4. 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. There was no evidence to implicate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 06-03-2025
16:36:42
2 CRA-3978-2024
appellant/accused except the information given by co-accused in police
custody. 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. 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.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
application.
6. The appellant has remained in judicial custody from 10/08/2016 to
17/08/2016 and 11/03/2024 to 14/03/2024 i.e. in total for 11 days during
trial. Thereafter, from the date of impugned judgment i.e. 14/03/2024, he is
in jail. Thus, he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for
more than 12 months in total. The appellant remained on bail during trial
and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. The co-appellant Sudhesh
Kumar has been extended the benefit of suspension of sentence of
imprisonment by Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 01/10/2024
passed in S.L.A (Cri) no. 10848/2024. Case of present appellant is also
identical to co-accused Sudhesh Kumar. There is no likelihood of hearing of
appeal in near future. 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 bail subject to furnishing
3 CRA-3978-2024
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
24/06/2025 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.
7. In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this
order granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
8. 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].
9. 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 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].
4 CRA-3978-2024
10. 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.
11. 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
