Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sattu @ Satish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1214-2016
(SATTU @ SATISH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 01-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri A.K. Saxena learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Walmiki Sakargay, GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Vinay Puranik learned counsel for the objector.
Heard on IA No.9095/2020, which is first application filed
under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail and suspension of
execution of jail sentence of appellant no. 7 Bheem @ Bheemsingh.
The appellant is in custody because of his conviction under
sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of IPC and sentence to undergo one year
R.I with fine of Rs. 1000/-, two years R.I. With fine of Rs. 2000/- and Life
Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to
typographical mistake, the I.A has been mentioned as 6 th application, but
in fact, it is the first application filed on behalf of appellant no. 7 Bheem
@ Bheemsingh.
Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has not
committed any crime and has been falsely implicated in the alleged
offence. He is permanent resident of District-Dewas and there is no
apprehension of his fleeing away from the course of justice and tamper
the witnesses and the evidence. His wife is suffering from severe illness
and doctor advised her for operation of hysterectomy. Under these
circumstances, he prays for grant of bail and suspension of execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant no. 7 Bheem @ Bheemsingh.
Per-contra, learned GA for the respondent/State opposed the
application and prays for its rejection.
Learned counsel for the objector also prays for rejection of the
application by submitting that the appellant and his family members are
still threatening the family members of the victim and other witnesses
and due to previous enmity, witness Vijay has been attacked by the
family members of the appellant. Learned counsel also filed a copy of the
FIR in support of his contention.
On perusal of the records, it is found that the appellant did not file
any relevant medical document regarding illness of his wife and necessity
of her operation.
From perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence
available on record, it is clear that there is no serious contradictions
between the ocular and medical evidence. Anjali (PW-3), Vijay (PW-5)
and Dinesh (PW-6) are the eye-witnesses and they have supported the
prosecution version in their statements. The prosecution case is also
supported by the medical evidence and other evidence available on
record.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court,
no case is made out for grant of bail and suspension of execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant no. 7 Bheem @ Bheemsingh.
Accordingly, I.A. no. 9095/2020 is hereby rejected.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL ) ( ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by AMOL N
MAHANAG
Date: 2021.09.03 11:41:05
+05'30'
