Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharu And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1177 of 2011
(BHARU AND ANR. AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-12-2022
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri A.S. Sisodiya, Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.13410 of 2022 which is an application for urgent hearing
for bail application.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed.
Heard on I.A No.13409 of 2022 which is 6th application for suspension
of jail sentence of appellant No.1 Bharu mainly on the ground that the appellant
has already undergone actual sentence of 11 years and 9 months. The present
appellant No.1 has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-
and R.I. for 3 months, respectively with default stipulation.
It is further submitted that identical placed co-accused appellant No.2
Kalu has already been granted the benefit of suspension of sentence. There is
no criminal antecedents of the appellant.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731
(Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners vs.
Union of India and others) and followed in Criminal Appeal No.1640 of 2010
(Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics) decided on 30.08.2010 has held
that if the convict has undergone a sentence of more than fifty percent of what
has been awarded to him, the same shall constitute a ground to the Court to
Signature Not Verified
consider while enlarging him on bail.
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 12/16/2022
6:16:28 PM
On considering the facts, we do not find that the exceptions as pointed
out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 05.10.2021 passed in SLP
(Criminal) No.4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and others)
are applicable herein.
Since the appellant No.1 has already undergone the custody of almost
more than 11 years and 9 months, we are of the view that he requires to be
enlarged on bail on that ground itself.
Consequently, I.A. No.13409 of 2022 is allowed. The remaining jail
sentence of the appellant No.1 is suspended.
Appellant No.1 - Bharu Damor be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with separate
solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his
appearance before the concerned trial court on 15.03.2023 and thereafter, on
such other subsequent dates as may be fixed in that behalf.
List for final hearing in due course.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 12/16/2022
6:16:28 PM
