Balraj @ Balli vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6204 MP

                          1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       CRA No. 1749/2022
       (BALRAJ @ BALLI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)



Gwalior, Dated: 26/04/2022

      Shri Rajmani Bansal, Counsel for appellant.

      Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for State.

      Shri S.S. Kushwah, Counsel for complainant.

      Heard on I.A. No.6343/2022. This is an application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

      The appellant has been convicted for the following offences :

Conviction U/s      Sentence       Fine     Default (in lieu of
                                            fine)
325/34 of IPC       02 years R.I. Rs.1000/- Three months R.I.

      Before considering the application for suspension of sentence,

this Court would like to consider one more aspect.

      The appellant was earlier granted bail while he was facing

trial. Thereafter, the complainant filed M.Cr.C. No.9793/2021 for

cancellation of bail on the ground that appellant has misused the

liberty by committing more criminal offences. After considering the

allegations of misusing of liberty, this Court by order dated

28.06.2021

passed in M.Cr.C. No.9793/2021 cancelled the bail on the

ground of misuse of liberty. The said order passed by this Court was

assailed by the appellant before the Supreme Court and by order

dated 22.07.2021 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.4974/2021, the Special

Leave Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, and accordingly,

he surrendered before the Trial Court.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No. 1749/2022 (BALRAJ @ BALLI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

According to the evidence of Purshottam (PW-1), the appellant

abused him filthily and thereafter threw him on the ground and

assaulted below the knee of his left leg by a stone lying on the

ground. As a result, he sustained injury, apart from various other

injuries caused by the other accused persons. As per MLC,

corresponding injury was found on the left leg as well as fracture of

tibia and fibula bone was also found, therefore, the allegations made

against the appellant of assaulting the injured by means of a stone

finds corroboration from the medical/x-ray report.

It is submitted by Counsel for the appellant that appellant has

been awarded jail sentence of two years and he has remained as an

under-trial from 28.07.2017 to 12.10.2017 and thereafter from

12.08.2021 i.e. after cancellation of his bail, till the judgment was

pronounced i.e. 12.02.2022, and thus, he has already undergone jail

sentence of approximately 11 months.

Considering the conduct of the appellant as an under trial as

well as the nature of allegations, this Court expressed that instead of

deciding the bail application, this Court is ready and willing to hear

the matter finally but it was submitted by Counsel for appellant that

since the sentence of co-accused persons has already been suspended

and they have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, therefore,

their Counsel or co-accused persons may not agree for final

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No. 1749/2022 (BALRAJ @ BALLI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

arguments.

This submission made by Counsel for appellant cannot be

appreciated being completely stranger to the provisions of Cr.P.C.

Once a criminal appeal is filed, then it has to be heard finally. The

Counsel for appellant could not point out any provision of law either

from Cr.P.C or from the High Court Rules that if a criminal appeal is

admitted, then it has to be heard only after a particular stipulated

period and not prior to that. On the contrary, the law requires that as

soon as an appeal is filed, then it has to be heard as early as possible.

Be that whatever it may.

Since the apprehension expressed by Counsel for appellant

was not completely baseless, therefore, he was requested to give the

date of his choice so that all the criminal appeals can be fixed for

final arguments and in case if co-accused persons do not cooperate in

the final arguments of their appeal, then their bail can be cancelled.

However, Counsel for appellant specifically submitted that he

does not want final hearing of the case.

Under these circumstances, where the accused is not interested

in final disposal of the appeal, then he cannot raise the ground of

period of detention. The ground of period of detention is available

only when the Court is not in a position to hear the appeal finally.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No. 1749/2022 (BALRAJ @ BALLI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

case, the conduct of the appellant as an under-trial as well as the

conduct of appellant in not arguing the matter on merits, this Court is

of the considered opinion that the period of detention as pleaded by

Counsel for the appellant cannot be considered at all.

Accordingly, I.A. No.6343/2022, fails and is hereby

dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Aman

AMAN TIWARI 2022.04.26 18:50:22 +05'30'