Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anthoney Rodrick vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1809 of 2022
(ANTHONEY RODRICK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-04-2022
Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pramod Choubey, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard on I.A. No.3132/2022, application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.
for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections
307/34 and 458 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5-5 years
and fine of Rs.500/- in each with default stipulation passed by the 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Session Judge, Katni, District
Katni, vide judgment dated 22.01.2022 passed in ST No.86/2018 (State of M.P.
vs. Abhishek Pandey and others).
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during trial, the
appellant was on bail. He has suffered more than one year and three months in jail.
He has not misused the liberty granted to him by way of bail during the course of
trial. He has drawn attention of this Court towards evidence of Gulab Rohra (PW-
3) who in para-11 of his evidence has admitted that in his police statement he had
stated that appellant Anthoney had caught hold him and co-accused Abhishek had
inflicted knife injuries upon him. He was confronted with his police statement
(Exhibit-P/7) in which it is mentioned that he was beaten by the appellant Anthoney
by kicks and fists. On the basis of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that looking to the contradictory evidence of the
complainant/injured Gulab and the fact that his injured son Amit is also facing
more than 15 criminal cases and the fact that appellant Anthoney has not caused
any injury by any weapon, he be released on bail pending the appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed
the application for grant of bail.
Signature Not Verified
On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is revealed that during trial,
SAN
Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra
Date: 2022.04.22 15:00:31 IST
appellant Anthoney remained in jail for a period of almost 11 months and thereafter
he is in jail since the date of judgment i.e. 22.01.2022. There is a contradiction in
the evidence of the complainant/injured about the role of the appellant Anthoney.
Therefore, taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the
appellant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am
inclined to released the appellant on bail as there is no possibility of coming this
appeal for hearing in near future. Consequently, I.A. No.3132/2022 is allowed till
further orders.
The execution of jail sentence of appellant- Anthoney is hereby
suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited). It is
directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond to
a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to
appear before the Registry of this Court on 14.09.2022 and on such other dates,
as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Priya.P
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra
Date: 2022.04.22 15:00:31 IST
