Dilip Mali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7408 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
                          Criminal Appeal No.19/2018
                      (Dili Mali and 02 Ors. Vs. State of M. P.)
                                        -1-

Indore, dated 15/11/2021

      Mr. Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellants.

      Ms.    Vinita    Phaye,     learned     Government Advocate    for   the

respondent / State.

Heard on IA No.26987/2021, which is fifth application for

suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellant No.1 Dilip Mali.

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated

24/11/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial

No.304/2012, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant

under section 307 of the IPC read with Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act

and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years and 01 year with fine of

Rs.25,000/- respectively with further default stipulation.

Vide order dated 20/04/2018 this Court has rejected the application

for suspension of sentence after considering the evidence of PW-1, PW-2

and DW-1 in detail couple with the fact that the appellant had undergone

less than 02 years jail sentence, thereafter, vide order dated 01/08/2018

appellant No.3 Mahesh Mali has been released on bail by way of

suspension of sentence as he was carrying iron rod. Thereafter, second

application was filed for suspension of sentence which was dismissed on

19/09/2018. Third application for suspension of sentence was filed and

the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05/05/2021 with

liberty to revive the prayer after four months. Against the aforesaid order

appellant Dilip Mali filed a S.L.P.(Cr) No.6469/2021, which has been

dismissed vide order dated 09/09/2021.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Criminal Appeal No.19/2018 (Dili Mali and 02 Ors. Vs. State of M. P.)

Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant No.1

Dilip submits that the appellant No.1 has under gone more than 05 years

of actual sentence and more than 06 years including remission. This is an

appeal of the year 2018 and same is not likely to come for final hearing in

near future. By that time the appellant would undergo entire jail sentence.

Hence, he may kindly be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State

opposed the application for suspension of sentence by submitting that

looking to the gravity of the offence committed by this appellant, this

Court by a detail and speaking order has rejected the application for

suspension of sentence and no SLP has been filed against the said

order. Hence, no case for allowing the application for suspension of

sentence is made out.

Once the appellant No.1 has approached the apex Court and SLP

has been dismissed without granting any liberty to approach the High

Court, the subsequent application for suspension of sentence is not

maintainable. Especially when this Court has rejected the application on

merit by a detail and speaking order dated 20/04/2018. No case for

allowing the application for suspension is made out. Accordingly IA.No.

26987/2021 is dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Tej

Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2021.11.17 17:31:58 -08'00'