Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2021
Author: Rohit Arya
1 CRA-590-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 590 of 2020
(SANTOSH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 10-12-2021
Shri Kanhaiya Singhal and Shri Samar Ghuraiya learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned Dy.Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
He ar d on I.A.No.32247/2021, second application under section 389(1)
Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of sole
appellant. Earlier application (I.A.No.16610/2020) was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dt.23.03.2021.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced to suffer
two years' R.I., under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to
suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, under section 396 read with
Section 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K.Act and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine
of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment dated 13.12.2019 passed in
Case No. SC (DOCT) 21/2013 by Special Judge (Dakaiti), Bhind, M.P.
As per the prosecution story, an FIR was lodged at about 09.30 a.m. on
15.05.2008 by complainant Mahaveer Singh to the effect that 3-4 days ago the
present appellant Santosh Singh Sikarwar and his uncle Lakhan Singh had suggested
that a second hand tractor of Mahendra Company of 575 D.I. of 2005 model is
available for sale for consideration of Rs.2,45,000/-. If he is inclined to purchase the
tractor, the said amount may be arranged and the tractor can be purchased. The place
for the deal was fixed in Gram Sikroda on 14.05.2018. The deceased Sanjeev trusting
the present appellant accepted the present offer and had made arrangement of
Rs.2,45,000/-. At about 5.00 p.m. on 14.05.2008, the deceased was called on spot by
the present appellant assuring the availability of the tractor alongwith seller namely
Ahvaran Singh Gurjar, Bhura Gurjar alongwith other members of the family. All
persons collected at one place and amount of Rs.1,95,000/- was tendered to the
present appellant. The same is alleged to have been handed over to Ahvaran Singh,
however, an exception was taken by Bhura, brother of Ahvaran insisting for total
amount of Rs.2,45,000/-. The deceased side people resisted the insistence with a
condition that unless sale letter is handed over, they shall not tender the remaining
2 CRA-590-2020
amount. Over such an issue, heated exchanges took place followed by gun shot fired
by Ahvaran Singh Gurjar causing bullet injury on the hip of the deceased piercing
through stomach. The same led to death of the deceased Sanjeev.
Shri Kanhaiya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant contends that this
Court while allowing to withdraw the earlier application for suspension of sentence
on 23.03.2021 had granted liberty to revisit through fresh application after suffering
some further reasonable period of custody. Learned counsel also submits that during
trial the appellant had suffered jail incarceration for three months and thereafter was
enlarged on bail. He never misused the conditions of bail and regularly attended the
trial. Learned counsel further submits that accepting the story of the prosecution on
its face value neither any act much less overt act is attributed to the appellant in the
context of the alleged offence of commission of murder of deceased Sanjeev. The
applicant was a mere broker having finalized the deal of sale of second hand tractor
between the deceased and the co-accused Ahvaran Singh. There is no evidence against
the present appellant either triggering the heated discussion between the deceased
party and Ahvaran Singh and other co-accused persons. The sole allegation against the
present appellant is that of having tendered Rs.1,95,000/- to Ahvaran Singh passed on
by the deceased Sanjeev. Under such circumstances, the complicity of the appellant
in the context of alleged crime with the aid of Section 149 of IPC is highly
suspicious. The appellant had already suffered jail incarceration since 13.12.2019.
The appellant has no criminal antecedents. He has already suffered social indignation.
Further jail incarceration in the company of with the hardened criminals shall
seriously jeopardized his life and family. On these grounds, learned counsel prays
that execution of the jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he may be
enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Dy.Advocate General opposes the bail application and
prayed for its rejection with the submission that there appears to be conspiracy
hatched by the appellant while calling the deceased party on spot under the pretext of
sale and purchase of second hand tractor, where the incident took place. As such,
complicity of the appellant can not be ruled out.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of
learned counsel for the parties but, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
case, this Court is of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. It is,
accordingly, directed that execution order of jail sentence of appellant shall remain
3 CRA-590-2020
suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and
also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2022, and on further dates as may be
directed by the Registry in that regard, with following further conditions:
(i) Appellant will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders
issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local
administration from to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical
distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);
(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing appellant, his
medical examination be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie
found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up
action including the isolation/quarantine or any further test required be undertaken
immediately.
(iii) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2021.12.11
15:56:10 +05'30'
