Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guru Prasad 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. 10249 of 2022
(GURU PRASAD DWIVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-12-2022
Shri Shakti Prakas Pandey -Advocate for the appellant.
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 appellant,
it appears that appeal involves arguable points, therefore it is admitted for final
hearing.
Also heard on IA No. No. 21569/2022, which is first application on
behalf of the appellant under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant has been convicted under Sections 307/149, 333/149, 435/149,
148, 332/149, 342/149, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 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 appellant 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 appellant and at the most offence under
Section 323 of IPC is made out and as such the period of sentence is on higher
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 12/23/2022
12:13:39 PM
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 appellant has
committed the alleged offence and despite that he has been convicted and
sentenced and as such finding of trial court is perverse and deserves to be set
aside. He submits that the appellant has 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 appellant may be suspended and he 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 appellant, at this stage application deserves to be dismissed
because at least appellant 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.
21569/2022 is allowed.
I t is directed that remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain
suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a surety bond of like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court o n 05.04.2023 and on such other dates as
maybe fixed by the Registry in this regard.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
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
