Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10311 of 2022
(ARUN KUMAR DWIVEDI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-12-2022
Shri Sanjay Agrawal- Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sheersh
Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Pradeep Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Record of the trial court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for he
appellants, it appears that appeal involves arguable points, therefore it is
admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No. No. 21207/2022, which is first application on
behalf of the appellants under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/149, 333/149,
435/149, 148, 332/149, 342/149, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4
of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property and sentenced to RI for seven
years with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for seven years with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for
five years with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for
one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for
one year with fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for two years with fine of Rs. 500/- with
default stipulations. All the sentences to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that looking to the case of the
prosecution and the injuries sustained by the injured offence under Section 307
of IPC is not made out against the appellants and at the most offence under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 12/23/2022
12:13:39 PM
Section 323 of IPC is made out and as such the period of sentence is on higher
side and the judgment passed by the trial court is therefore liable to be set aside.
He further submits that even otherwise as per the findings given by the trial
court, especially in paragraphs 220 and 263 of its judgment it is clear that the
prosecution failed to produced any evidence to prove that the appellants have
committed the alleged offence and despite that they have been convicted and
sentenced and as such finding of trial court is perverse and deserves to be set
aside. He submits that the appellants have already suffered sentence of almost
six months and the final hearing of the appeal would take a long time and hence
remaining jail sentence of appellants may be suspended and they may be
released on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the application
and submitted that looking to the period of sentence awarded and period of
incarceration of appellants, at this stage application deserves to be dismissed
because at least appellants should suffer sentence of three and a half years.
Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties,
record of the trial court and also the judgment passed by the trial court, I am
inclined to consider and allow the application. Accordingly, IA No. No.
21207/2022 is allowed.
I t is directed that remaining jail sentence of appellants shall remain
suspended and they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with a surety bond
of like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2023 and on such other
dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.
Signature Not Verified
Certified copy as per rules.
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 12/23/2022
12:13:39 PM
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 12/23/2022
12:13:39 PM
