Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Singh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2025
1 CRA-12202-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12202 of 2024
(RAKESH SINGH JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 15-05-2025
Shri Rajmani Bansal - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi - learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.1754/2025, first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.
for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
2. This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 4.10.2024 passed in Special
Case No.02/2021 by the Special Judge (Prevention Corruption Act), District
Vidisha, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo 4 years RI with fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has wrongly
convicted the appellant without proper appreciation of facts of the case as well as
evidence on record. As per the prosecution's case, the demand of illegal
gratification was made by the appellant from the complainant for mutation and
demarcation of the land, however, at the time of alleged demand no such
application was pending. It is further submitted that in the phenolphthalein
test conducted by the prosecution, the hands of the appellant remained intact and
did not turn to pink. It is further submitted that learned trial Court while
convicting the appellant has ignored the fact that it was Kamlesh Sapre who was
the Patwari at the time the work was to be done and he was responsible for it.
When the raiding party arrived at the spot, he was found sitting there and hid
himself in the washroom. Despite this, no action was taken against Kamlesh
2 CRA-12202-2024
Sapre and only appellant has been implicated in this case. Witness Suman
Raikwar (PW-1) admitted in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his cross-examination that the
work of mutation or demarcation falls under the domain of Tahsildar and there
was no role of the appellant in the said work of mutation. It is further submitted
that complainant Dinesh Singh Parmar (PW-11) turned hostile and did not
support the story of prosecution. Though he has stated that DVR has been given to
him and he has recorded the conversation of demand of illegal gratification, but it
is also revealed from his cross-examination that conversation recorded in memory
card, Article A/1, is neither clear nor understandable to identify as to which voice
is of complainant and which voice is of applicant Rakesh and other persons,
therefore, a doubt is created as to whether there is demand of illegal gratification
by present applicant or not in the alleged recording.
4. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the order of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sohail Gohar vs. State of M.P. decided on
17.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.2058/2025 in which it is held that there is no
proposition of law that the suspension of sentence can be sought after undergoing
half of the jail sentence. When there is a fixed term sentence pending an appeal
against conviction, a liberal approach should be adopted while deciding the prayer
for suspension of sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances. Relying
upon the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of
Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421 it is held that suspension of sentence can be
considered by the appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional
circumstances. When the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for
suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason
the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour
3 CRA-12202-2024
should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion
for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. It is also held
that a litigant should not be forced to approach this Court. The High Court
ought to have applied law as it stands and kept in mind the fact that there is a
huge pendency of appeals against conviction in the High Court. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has suspended the sentence of accused in this case after
undergoing the sentence of more than 9 months.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
was on bail during trial, but he did not misuse the liberty so granted. He is in
custody from the date of judgment i.e. 4.10.2024. There is no likelihood of
hearing of the instant appeal in near future. Having considered that work of
mutation and demarcation is not assigned to the applicant, the period of custody
as well as age of the appellant, he may be granted suspension of sentence.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application on the
ground that though complainant turned hostile, but he supported the story of
prosecution substantially. Other witnesses have also categorically supported the
story of prosecution as regards demand of illegal gratification by present
appellant. The trial Court in detail has considered the evidence as well as the
contentions put forth by the parties and rightly concluded the conviction of
present appellant. No case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as the age of
the appellant, but without commenting on merits of the case, I.A.No.1754
of 2025 is hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if not
4 CRA-12202-2024
already deposited, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Thousand Only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of
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 on
21/07/2025 and on subsequent dates given by the Registry in this regard, till
final disposal of this appeal.
C.C. as per Rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
