Hemraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4987 MP

                                                                        1                            CRA-5999-2019
                                         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    CRA-5999-2019
                                                (HEMRAJ AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                         7
                         Jabalpur, Dated : 03-09-2021
                                    Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                    Shri Priyank Choubey, Advocate for the appellant.
                                    Shri K.K. Verma, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the Court below is available.

Heard on I.A. No.1531/2020, which is repeat (second) application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2-

Ramcharan. Earlier application has been dismissed as withdrawn.

The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 by the appellant/accused against judgment dated 29.05.2019 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Baigumganj, District-Raisen (MP), in Sessions Trial No.218/2014, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

As per prosecution story, on 13.07.2014, appellant/accused and co-accused

committed murder to the deceased/Sonu @ Surendra.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that appellant/accused has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. He further submits that learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way. There is no clinching evidence available on the record on which appellant/accused can be convicted and sentenced. There is no eye-witness available on the record. There is only material available on the record i.e appellant/accused threatened to the deceased to kill before this incident. This evidence is not sufficient to convict and sentence to the appellant/accused under the aforesaid section. Therefore, case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. There is material contradictions and omissions in the

Signature Not Verified SAN evidence of witnesses. This appeal is of the year 2019. The appellant is in jail

Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.09.04 14:56:54 IST 2 CRA-5999-2019 since 29.05.2019 and he remained in jail during trial s i nce 17.07.2014 to 29.01.2015. It is the time of Covid-19 pandemic, due to this final hearing of this appeal will take considerable time for its final disposal. During the trial appellant/accused was on bail. There is fair chance to succeed in the appeal. There is no likelihood of his absconding and tampering with the evidence. Under

these circumstances, if the sentence of the appellant/accused is not suspended, his right to file appeal will be futile. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail of present accused/appellant.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the record and the fact that it appears from the record that there is only evidence available against the appellant/accused that before the incident, he threatened to the deceased to kill, the appellant is in jail since 29.05.2019 and he remained in jail during trial since 17.07.2014 to 29.01.2015, it is a time of Covid-19 pandemic, this appeal is of the year 2019 and final hearing of this appeal will take time, without commenting anything on the merit of the case, the said I.A. is allowed.

It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of accused/appellant No.2-Ramcharan shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 04.10.2021 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard.

I n case, accused/appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the trial Court then the said Court shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest Signature Not Verified SAN without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.09.04 14:56:54 IST 3 CRA-5999-2019 kept informed.

I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' accused/appellant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-

1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of accused/appellant by the jail doctor before his release.

2 . Accused/appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that accused/appellant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.

List this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy.

                            (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)                                 (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                       JUDGE                                                      JUDGE


                         Nitesh




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2021.09.04 14:56:54 IST