Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 April, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.4316/2019
(Rahul and another Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 20.4.2022
Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned Govt.Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.6217/2020, which is second application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of
appellant No.1/Rahul.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 307 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' RI with fine of Rs.40,000/- and
under Section307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' RI with
fine of Rs.40,000/-, with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 24.4.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Ujjain,
District Ujjain in S.T.No.45/2018.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant alongwith other co-
accused person with an intent to commit murder of the complainant
assaulted him and caused grievous injuries by knive on various parts of
the body of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his first
application for suspension of sentence was dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to file afresh after proper lapse of time vide order dated
20.11.2019. The appellant is in custody since 21.11.2017 and has
suffered more than 50% period of sentence out of total sentence
awarded to him. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
(Rahul and another Vs. State of M.P.)
as per prosecution case itself only one injury was found on the body of
the complainant. It is apparent from the statement of the Doctor that
said injury was not dangerous to live. Sentence of co-accused Arjun
has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 14.8.2019. There is
no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. Therefore, in the
aforesaid circumstances prays for suspension of sentence and
enlargement of appellant on bail, on such terms and conditions this
Court deems fit and proper.
Per contra, learned Govt.Advocate opposes the prayer for
suspension of sentence and submits that the trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellant.
Having considered the rival submissions, the material pointed
out by learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that appellant has
suffered more than 50% sentence out of total sentence awarded to him
and also considering the fact that final conclusion of the appeal will
take considerable long time, but without commenting on merits of the
case application is allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already
not deposited, appellant shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along
with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 13.06.2022,
(Rahul and another Vs. State of M.P.)
and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard,
till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.6217/2020 is allowed.
List in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
Patil
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.04.21
14:47:06 +05'30'
