Nandu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5207 MP

                                                                    1                                CRA-1600-2015
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                     CRA-1600-2015
                                                 (NANDU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                23
                                Indore, Dated : 08-09-2021
                                         Ms. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-Bheru.
                                         Ms. Vinita Phaye, learned Government Advocate for the respondent /

State.

Heard on I.A. No.18283/2021, which is fifth application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail

sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.2 â€Â" Bheru s/o Nagu Garwal.

The appellant has been convicted vide judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2015 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.57/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 324/34, 364(ka) and 120 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- and Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- respectively. With default clause to further undergo one month, 15 days and two month's rigorous

imprisonment respectively.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that similarly situated co- accused persons Krishnagopal and Dilip Sharma got benefit of suspension of sentence by order dated 13.07.2018. The appellant's case is better than the case of aforesaid co-accused persons. This Court on 02.08.2019 inquired whether appellant Bheru has undergone six years in the custody or not ?

In turn, the Government Advocate verified and it is not in dispute that the appellant Bheru has undergone more than six years.

As per prosecution story, Ms. Sharma submits that the appellant saved the kidnapped child and produced before the Court. The statement of PW.1 is relied upon. In this view of the matter and on the basis of parity, it is

Signature Not Verified SAN prayed that remaining jail sentence of appellant Bheru be suspended.

Digitally signed by JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Date: 2021.09.09 10:37:37 IST
                                                                  2                             CRA-1600-2015

The prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State by contending that the child was found in the custody of appellant. The appellant has not given any explanation in his statement recorded u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. as to how he got the said child and why he did not inform the Police authority immediately after getting the said child. She

placed heavy reliance on the statement of Investigating Officer (PW.29).

We have heard the parties and in our opinion, prima facie, a case of appellant is not identical to Krishnagopal, Dilip Sharma and other co-accused persons who got the benefit of suspension of sentence. The child was found in the custody of present appellant. The Court has considered this aspect in sufficient detailed in para 37 of the impugned judgement. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant Bheru at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, I.A. No.18283/2021 stands dismissed.

                                    (SUJOY PAUL)                                        (PRANAY VERMA)
                                       JUDGE                                                   JUDGE


                                jyoti




Signature Not Verified
 SAN



Digitally signed by JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Date: 2021.09.09 10:37:37 IST