Dara Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3122 MP

                                                                      1                                 CRA-134-2013
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                     CRA-134-2013
                                               (DARA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  54
                                  Jabalpur, Dated : 09-07-2021
                                        Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                        Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 Dara Singh.
                                        Shri A.K. Jain with Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
                                  appellant No.2 Pancham @ Gulab Singh.
                                        Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Siddharth Datt,

                                  learned counsel for the appellant No.6 Rahul.
                                        Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.19624/2019, which is 9th application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Dara Singh for suspension and grant of bail, I.A. No.11991/2018, which is 9th application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant No.2 Pancham @ Gulab Singh for suspension sentence and grant of bail and I.A. No.3314/2020, which is 5th application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant No.6 Rahul for suspension sentence and grant of bail.

The earlier applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 6 were dismissed on merit by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11/01/2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in S.T.No.238/2008, whereby learned ASJ found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life with fine of Rs.500/- each, R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.300/- each and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.200/- each respectively with default clause.

The earlier bail applications of the appellants have been dismissed by Signature Not Verified SAN the coordinate bench of this Court on merits. Thereafter there has been no

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.07.12 16:53:36 IST 2 CRA-134-2013 change in circumstance. Though the aggrieved persons can file subsequent application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail even on a ground already rejected by the Court earlier, if there is a change in the factual situation or in law. In this case the grounds raised by the learned counsels for the appellants have already been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 18/02/2013 and further orders. Thereafter there has

been no change in circumstances.

Learned counsels of the appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 6 also submitted that appellants have been in jail since 11/01/2013 and there is no possibility of early hearing of this appeal. So also appellants are entitled for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. In this regard learned counsels of the appellants also placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgement passed in the case of Sandeep @ Raja Acharya Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2017 SC 1568 . But in that case Hon’ble Apex Court did not lay down any principle that in every case, where the accused has suffered half or more than half of the sentence, he be released on bail.

On the other hand Full Bench of this Court in Cr.A. No.1248/2005 (Dashrath Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 26/04/17 held that (i) The sentence of life imprisonment or imprisonment of any lesser term of the convict cannot be suspended under Section 389(1) of 'the Code' solely on the ground of his having served sentence of any particular period or one half of the maximum sentence, inclusive or exclusive of remission. To that extent, the legal proposition laid down in Raghuwar Singh's case (supra) is contrary to settled legal position. (ii) Under Section 389 of 'the Code' an appellate Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing order suspension of execution of sentence and in this regard, there has to be judicious and careful consideration of all the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension cannot be passed as a matter of routine. (iii) While considering suspension, the Court, amongst other factors, is required to consider the nature of accusation made against the accused, gravity of the offence, the manner in which the crime is alleged Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.07.12 16:53:36 IST 3 CRA-134-2013 to have been committed and the desirability of the accused being released on bail after conviction.

In this case learned trial Court found the appellants guilty for murdering Pratapvan & Sonu, who died on the spot due to gunshot injuries caused by the appellants & other co-accused persons. So looking to the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court for holding the appellants guilty and the fact that earlier applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellants have already been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on merits and thereafter there has been no change in circumstance, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellants.

Accordingly, I.A. Nos.19624/2019, 11991/2018 & 3314/2020 are

hereby rejected.

The appeal has already been admitted for final hearing, so it be listed for final hearing in due course.

                                       (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)               (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
                                               JUDGE                                      JUDGE


                                  as




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.07.12 16:53:36 IST