RAMESHCHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing. Also heard on IA No.3187 of 2024, first application under Sec. 389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant- Rameshchand seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Appellant stood convicted under Sec. 467/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000.00, under Sec. 468/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000.00, under Sec. 471/120B IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000.00 , under Sec. 474/120B IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000.00 and under Sec. 409 IPC and sentenced t o undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000.00, respectively with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 20/12/2023 passed by VIIth ASJ, Shivpuri District Shivpuri (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.259 of 2017. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel contends that appellant has been implicated in this matter merely for the reason that he was working as Branch Manager of Allahabad Bank, Shivpuri at the relevant time. Learned trial Court has concluded that the accused Balram, Naresh, Ajit, and Dhanti Bai in conspiracy with Branch Manager Rameshchand forged Voters ID Card, Ration Card and Revenue Papers in the name of Vaijayantimala Yadav and opened a KCC Account at Allahabad Bank, Shivpuri for an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00. Dhanti Bai fraudulently impersonating herself as Vaijayantimala operated this account and had withdrawn Rs.2,95,000.00. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant Rameshchand himself was victim of the fraud, forgery and cheating committed by other accused Balram, Naresh, Ajit and Dhanti Bai. Explaining conclusion of learned trial Court in Para 46 to 49 of the judgment, learned counsel submits that KCC loan application in the name of Vajayantimala was submitted by accused Dhanti Bai impersonating as Vaijayantimala which was duly verified by account holder Balram. It was forwarded for verification and search to Kamal Kishore Gupta (PW3). Kamal Kishore Gupta submitted his verification report Ex.P/4 and P/5. Thereafter, appellant Rameshchand opened the KCC Account in the name of Vajayantimala which was later found to be forged. Learned counsel submits that the appellant after due verification and search report, has opened the account. He has not derived any benefit in the transaction. Learned trial Court committed an error in concluding that appellant was part of conspiracy with other co-accused. Learned counsel submits that no criminal antecedent is reported against the appellant. Appellant is aged around 65 years. He is retired from Allahabad Bank. He has a family to look-after at Gwalior. He was in custody during trial for seven days. His sentence was suspended by the trial Court till 26/2/2023. He surrendered to custody on 26/2/2023 itself. He has not misused the liberty of bail during trial or post conviction. Fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant.

(2.) There is no likelihood of early hearing of appeal in near future. On these premised submissions, learned counsel prays that the execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the instant appeal. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent State opposes the application and prays for its rejection. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-

(3.) 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]. 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 Sec. 446 of CrPC 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]. 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. Accordingly, IA No.3187 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of. List for final hearing in due course along with connected CRA No. 480 of 2024. Certified copy as per rules.