Sahab Singh @ Baljinder vs State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 6065 MP

                                                                         1
                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                                CRA No. 1851 of 2022
                                                          (SAHAB SINGH @ BALJINDER Vs STATE OF M.P.)

                                    Dated : 25-04-2022
                                          Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                          Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.

I.A. No.3245/2022, which is first application u/S 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Sahab Singh @ Baljinder is taken up.

The appellant-accused has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 12.02.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Goharganj, District-Raisen (M.P.) in Session Trial No.26/2019 convicting appellant- accused under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

Prosecution story as reflects from the perusal of impugned judgment is to the effect that on 03.05.2018 complainant-Gulabsingh lodged a report with Police Station Mandideep, District-Raisen alleging that a truck bearing registration No.MH-18-BA-4190 is registered in the name of his son Gaurav

Thakur, was parked in front of Vardhman Dhaba, has been stolen in the intervening night of 01.05.2018-02.05.2018. On the basis of said report, the prosecution proceeded and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, dead-body of Jeevan Singh who was cleaner of the said truck, was found and incriminating material against the main accused Adesh Khamara, Jaikaran Prajapati and Sunil Khatik were found. However, since the appellant herein had purchased the aforesaid stolen truck thus he was also prosecuted under Section 411 of IPC. The trial Court upon conclusion of trial though has convicted the main accused Jaikaran Peajapati for the offences under Sections 302, 328, 364, 392 and 407 of the IPC but has convicted the present appellant only under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced him for 3 years Signature Not Verified SAN

rigorous imprisonment.

Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2022.04.26 17:30:33 IST

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been

implicated as he had no role as far as the theft of the vehicle or even the murder of the cleaner was concerned. Looking to the limited allegation of purchase of stolen truck that too bonafidely, the appellant ought to have been acquitted. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 11.04.2022 and

during trial he remained in jail from 19.11.2018 to 23.07.2019 that is approximately 8 months and thereafter he was enlarged on bail for 30 days by the trial Court to move an appeal and seek suspension of sentence from the Appellate Court. However, since the period of 30 days was over, thus the present appellant surrendered himself before the trial Court on 11.04.2022. He urges that the appellant has acted bonafidely and has surrendered himself, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Learned Government Advocate for State opposes the application and submits that there are reliable and cogent evidence to sustain the conviction and sentence.

After having heard learned counsel for rival parties and having perused t h e judgment, it appears that during trial appellant has already suffered incarceration of 8 months out of 3 years of sentence and there is no hope of this appeal coming up for hearing in near future.

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to grant bail to appellant by way of suspension of sentence. Hence, I.A. No.3245/2022 is allowed.

It is directed that jail sentence of appellant-Sahab Singh @ Baljinder will remain under suspension subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned available Magistrate for his appearance before concerned available Magistrate on 21.06.2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this regard which shall be of frequency not less than once a Signature Not Verified SAN

year.

Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2022.04.26 17:30:33 IST

In case, appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned

available Magistrate, then concerned available Magistrate shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.

Learned concerned available Magistrate and the prosecution are directed to ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. as well as the State Govt. during release, travel and residence of the appellant during period of

suspension of sentence as a consequence of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. Certified as per rules.

                                         (SHEEL NAGU)                                      (MANINDER S BHATTI)
                                            JUDGE                                                 JUDGE

                                    sp




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL
Date: 2022.04.26 17:30:33 IST