Vijay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 526 MP

                                      1


         High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
                     Bench at Indore
            Criminal Appeal No.6434/2020
Indore, Dated 08.03.2021
      Hearing through Video Conferencing.

      Mr. Mahendra Singh Gurjar, learned counsel for appellant

Vijay s/o Sitaram Parmar.

      Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh, on advance notice.

Heard on IA No.8860/2020, an application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of six months delay in

filing the present criminal appeal.

Looking to the fact that the appellant is already in jail and his

substantive right cannot be curtailed, due to some procedural delay.

Accordingly, IA No.8860/2020 stands allowed; and delay in

filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

However, as per Office Report, the present appeal is well

within the prescribed period of limitation.

Also heard on IA No.8861/2021, first application under

Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the

appellant.

The present appellant has been convicted and sentenced by

Special Judge (under Electricity Act) / Additional Sessions Judge,

Indore (MP) in Sessions Case No.178/2018 vide judgment dated

02.03.2020, as under: -

               Conviction                                   Sentence
    Section                Act              RI        Fine amount      Imprisonment in lieu of fine
   364/34      IPC, 1860         10 years            Rs.1,000/-        1 month RI
   307/34      IPC, 1860         10 years            Rs.1,000/-        1 month RI
   201/34      IPC, 1860         3 years             Rs.1,000/-        1 month RI

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that other co-

accused (Piyush @ Rohit s/o Suresh Pareta) person's application for

suspension of jail sentence has already been suspended by this Court

who has preferred Criminal Appeal No.3259/2020 vide order dated

09.10.2020. It is submitted that the role assigned to the present

appellant is similar to that of the other co-accused Piyush @ Rohit;

and thus, on the basis of parity, the present application for

suspension of jail sentence be allowed.

Counsel for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes

the prayer. However, it is not disputed that the case of the present

appellant is identical to that of the other co-accused Piyush @ Rohit.

Having considered the submissions, in the opinion of this

Court, the appellant has made out a case for parity.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the

case, IA No.8861/2020 is allowed and it is directed that on

furnishing a personal bond by the appellant in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his /

her regular appearance before this Court, the execution of the

custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant shall

remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his /

her presence before the Registry of this Court on 26.07.2021 and on

all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this

regard.

Let the record of the case from the concerned trial Court be

requisitioned, if not already received; and list the matter on the

question of admission soon thereafter.

C. c. as per rules.

Sd/-

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge rcp

Ramesh Chandra Pithawe 2021.03.10 12:02:53 +05'30'