Dhaniram @ Banti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6025 MP

                                                                         01

             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          Cr.A-3704/2022
           (Dhaniram @ Banty Rawat & ors. Vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated: 23.04.2022
           Shri Ashirwad Dwivedi, Counsel for the appellants.

       Shri K.S. Tomar, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State.

Heard on IA No.6500/2022, first application under Section 389 of

CrPC filed on behalf of appellants for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail.

Vide judgment dated 07.04.2022 passed by Second Additional

Sessions Judge Sabalgarh District Morena in Sessions Trial

No.104/2016, the appellants have been convicted as under:-

Appellant No.1- Dhaniram

Sections (IPC) Imprisonment Fine 452 of IPC One Year R.I. Rs.500/- with default stipulation for one month 325 of IPC Two Years RI Rs.3000/- with default stipulation for one month 325/34 of IPC Two Years RI Rs.3000/- with default stipulation for one month 323/149 of IPC (three Six months RI Rs.500/- with default counts) stipulation for one month

Appellant No.2- Ramkesh

Sections (IPC) Imprisonment Fine 325/34 of IPC Two Years RI Rs.3000/- with default stipulation for one

month 325/34 of IPC Two Years RI Rs.3000/- with default stipulation for one month 323/149 of IPC (three Six months RI Rs.500/- with default counts) stipulation for one month

Appellant No.3-Rishikesh

Sections (IPC) Imprisonment Fine 325/34 of IPC Two Years RI Rs.3000/- with default stipulation for one month 325/34 of IPC Two Years RI Rs.3000/- with default stipulation for one month 323/149 of IPC (three Six months RI Rs.500/- with default counts) stipulation for one month

Appellant No.4- Gote

Sections (IPC) Imprisonment Fine 323/149 of IPC (three Six months RI Rs.500/- with default counts) stipulation for one month

It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that the appellants

were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to

them. Fine amount has already been deposited by the appellants. The

trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of appellants for

one month from the date of passing of impugned judgment.

On the other hand, the application is opposed by the State

Counsel.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

coupled with the fact that sentence of the appellants have already

been suspended by the Trial Court for a period of one month, the

application for suspension of sentence is allowed. Subject to

verification of fine amount amount deposited by the appellants and on

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty

five thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount

to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Remand Magistrate

(whosoever is available) the remaining jail sentence of the appellants

shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail.

This order shall remain in force till conclusion/final disposal of

the present appeal.

The appellants shall now appear before the Registry of this

Court on 27th June, 2022 and on all other subsequent dates as may be

fixed by the Registry in this regard.

Let record of court below be requistioned.

CC as per rules.

YOGENDRA (Deepak Kumar Agarwal) OJHA ojha 2022.04.23 Judge 15:23:50 +05'30'