Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 CRA-3416-2014
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 3416 of 2014
(SANTOSH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-12-2021
Mr. Anand Nayak, Advocate for appellant No.1.
Mr. Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.3612/2021 which is an application for suspension
of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1.
This is the third application on behalf of appellant No.1 for suspension
of jail sentence. The first application of appellant No.1 was dismissed as
withdrawn whereas the second application was dismissed for want of
prosecution vide orders dated 25.11.2016 and 19.12.2018 respectively.
Appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer for
life with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for appellant No.1 submits that appellant No.1 has
already suffered 9 years and 6 months in jail. He submits that from the
statement of the witnesses recorded during trial, it can be easily gathered that
nobody has seen the incident and in fact the witnesses who were claiming to
be the eye witnesses, reached the spot after the incident occurred. He further
submits that the weapon i.e. Axe used in the murder was lying on the spot
and was seized by the Police there only. He also submits that the trial Court
has not considered the material omission and contradiction and also not taken
note of the cross-examination done by the defence. He further submits that
appeal would take long time to be heard finally and, therefore, the remaining
jail sentence of appellant No.1 may be suspended and he may be released on
bail.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the submissions
made by learned counsel for appellant No.1 and submitted that earlier
applications of appellant No.1 were dismissed as withdrawn and for want of
prosecution. He further submits that dismissal of application after withdrawal
2 CRA-3416-2014
amounts to rejection on merit, therefore, fresh application shall not be
considered. He also submits that considering the nature of offence
committed, appellant No.1 is not entitled to be released on bail.
Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the statement of the witnesses adduced by the
prosecution so also the judgment of the trial Court and taking into account the
custody period of appellant No.1, prima facie, we are of the considered
opinion to enlarge appellant No.1 on bail. Therefore, without commenting
anything on merits of the case, I.A. No.3612/2021 is allowed.
It is directed that on depositing the entire fine amount (if not deposited)
by appellant No.1 as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 23.03.2022 and on all such subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant
No.1 shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail, if not required
to be detained in any other case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devashish
DEVASHISH MISHRA
2021.12.04 12:20:02
+05'30'
