Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sohan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 April, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 10748 of 2019
(SOHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 19-04-2022
Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.4719/2022, application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to appellant - Sohan.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 394 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo ten years' RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default
stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2019
passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar in ST No.500148/2016.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.7.2016 at about 9.00 PM when
complainant Jainarayan was going on his Splendor motorcycle, appellant alongwith
other co-accused person stopped him assaulted him with stone and took an
amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith other valuable documents including papers of
Tractor and his motorcycle without his consent.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution case
incident was happened at about 9.00 PM. It is nowhere mentioned that how
complainant identified the appellant. Complainant in his FIR and in the statement
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.nowhere mentioned that he saw the
appellant and co-accused persons at Petrol pump prior to the incident, therefore,
identification conducted in the matter is doubtful. It is alleged that looted property
an amount of Rs.2,500/- cash and unnumbered Hero Motorcycle Passion Pro was
seized from possession of the appellant, but independent witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence
available on record. The appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused
the liberty granted to him. Appellant has suffered five years and eight months
incarceration out of the total sentence of ten years awarded to him. Similarly
Signature Not Verified
SAN
situated co-accused person Rakesh has already been granted suspension of
sentence vide order dated 28.03.2022 in connected Cr.A. No. 405/2021. There is
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.04.19 17:41:31 IST
no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. In view of aforesaid, learned
counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant
of the bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has opposed
the prayer and submits that looted property has been seized from possession of
the appellant. Complainant has identified him during TIP as well as during trial.
Offences registered against him are of serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled
for bail.
Considering the rival submissions, material pointed out by learned counsel
for the appellant and contradictions in the statement of the complainant specifically
with regard to identification of the appellant and there is no likelihood of hearing of
appeal in near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter
I.A.No.4719/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry
of this Court firstly on 09.05.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by
the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.578/2021 is allowed.
List in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.04.19 17:41:31 IST
