Praveen Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 778 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Praveen Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2025

                                                               1                                CRA-4462-2024
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                       CRA No. 4462 of 2024
                                              (PRAVEEN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                          Dated : 14-05-2025
                                   Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra - Senior Advocate with Shri Kaushal
                          Sisodiya - Advocate for appellant.
                                   Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the respondent /

State.

Heard on I.A.No.4792/2025, third application under Section 430 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellant Praveen Singh S/o Sardar Singh.

Appellant's first and second applications were dismissed on merit vide orders dated 04/07/2024 and 08/11/2024 passed on I.A.Nos.9768/2024 and 18162/2024 (wrongly mentioned as I.A.Nos.9768/2024).

The appellant stands convicted under Sections 420/120B (2 counts), 409/120B (2 counts), 467/120B (2 counts), 468/120B (2 counts) and 471/120B (2 counts) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 6(1) M. P. Nikshepako

Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and sentenced to undergo 04 years' RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-; 10 years' RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-; 10 years' RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-; 04 years' RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-; 02 years' RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-; and 02 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this

2 CRA-4462-2024 impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. No evidence is available against the appellant to connect him with the alleged crime. He has never been employee of GND (India) Limited, which allegedly misappropriated the amount collected from its customers including complainant and not returned on maturity of deposits in due time. GND (India) Limited and GN Gold are separate entities. For this, learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards seizure memos (Ex.P/86, P/1 and P/2) and also Article-A/38. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards para 9 of the statement of Investigating Officer Rajendra Narvariya (PW-12) to bolster his submission that even Investigating Officer has not given any evidence, which can support the prosecution case against the appellant. PW-3 and PW-4 have also

not supported the prosecution case. Co-accused Devesh Bajaj has been given benefit of suspension of sentence and the case of the present appellant is on better footing than the case of Devesh Bajaj. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses. Impugned judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures and has been passed ignoring serious infirmities and anomalies. It is further submitted that present appellant has so far suffered jail incarceration of near about 01 year and 02 months. The appeal being of the year 2024 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. There is a strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the

3 CRA-4462-2024 respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the present appellant. He further submits that while deciding earlier applications for suspension of sentence all these arguments were considered and thereafter, applications were dismissed. There is no change in the circumstances in which the appellant can be extended benefit of suspension of sentence. Offence was committed in the year 2013, which continued up to the year 2019. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as parity of present appellant with co-accused Devesh Bajaj is concerned, this Court is not impressed with the argument in this regard as Devesh Bajaj was Chartered Accountant and financial consultant of the Company. In para 55 of the judgment transfer order (Ex.-P/86) of the appellant has been discussed. Nowhere it has been objected that appellant has never been employee in GND Company, therefore, contention raised in this regard are baseless. Even in the order at the time of arguments on I.A.No.9768/2024 it was argued on behalf of the appellant that earlier he was posted at Delhi and in the year 2018 he was transferred to Mandsaur Branch. This also falsifies the arguments that appellant has not been employee of this company. This ground has been taken in to consideration while deciding the earlier application for suspension of sentence and have been discarded.

Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and

4 CRA-4462-2024 circumstances of the case, this Court do not find any substantial change in circumstances to reconsider the suspension application. Accordingly, I.A.No.4792/2025 stands dismissed.

I.A.No.4793/2025, which is an application for urgent hearing, also stands disposed off.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

Tej