Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Pandit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1 CRA-13294-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 13294 of 2023
(RAHUL PANDIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 22-03-2025
Shri Abhishek Verma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.P. Prajapati - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
None for the victim despite service of notice.
Heard on I.A. No.16017 of 2024, second application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant, pending the appeal.
Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under
Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 6 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with
fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, RI for ten years
with fine of Rs.2,000/-, RI for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, RI for ten
years with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulations vide
judgment dated 10.05.2023 passed in ST No.142/2021 (State of M.P. Vs.
Rahul) by Special Judge, POSCO Act, Chhindwara (MP). All the sentences
are directed to run concurrently.
Appellant's first bail application (I.A. No.25036 of 2023) was
dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 21.03.2024.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has
2 CRA-13294-2023
been erroneously convicted by learned trial Court as it has not properly
appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material on record. It
is submitted that evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of omissions and
contradictions and such omissions and contradictions have not been
considered in right perspective by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that
prosecutrix was a consenting party and she on her own had gone with the
appellant and prosecutrix (P.W.-1) has admitted the same in her evidence. It
is further submitted that appellant has already suffered almost a period of
five years & two months i.e. more than half of the actual jail sentence
awarded to him by the Trial Court. He has fair chances to succeed in appeal.
There is no possibility of final hearing of this appeal in near future. If the
execution of jail sentence of appellant is not suspended, the purpose of filing
this appeal would become futile. Thus, it is prayed that custodial jail sentence
of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.
Having taken into consideration the facts that appellant has already
undergone more than half of the actual jail sentence awarded to him by the
Trial Court and there is bleak possibility of hearing this appeal in near future,
I deem it a fit case to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant,
pending the appeal. Consequently, I.A.No.16017 of 2024 is allowed .
It is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant - Rahul
Pandit is hereby suspended subject to depositing the entire fine amount, if
not already deposited. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on
3 CRA-13294-2023
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court on
28.07.2025 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
