Arun @ Annu Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2286 MP

                                                                            1
                                                The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         CRA No. 2814 of 2018
                                                   (ARUN @ ANNU PATEL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     Jabalpur, Dated : 18-02-2022
                                           Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.

                                           Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

This appeal has already been admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A. No.21873/2021, which is the third application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2-Gautam.

First application of the present appellant was dismissed for want of

prosecution vide order dated 24.01.2020 and the second one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.05.2021.

Vide the impugned judgment the present appellant-Gautam has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the role of the present appellant is very limited in crime and as per the statement of some of the witnesses, the present appellant has not caused any injury with Thunia (Spile) to the deceased and as such, he is claiming parity with appellant No.3 to whom bail has been

granted by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2019. Shri Patel further submits that even otherwise if the case of the present appellant is not found similar to that of appellant No.3 then considering the nature of offence committed by the present appellant it is clear that it was not a premeditated incident as nobody was armed with any weapon and the incident occurred due to sudden provocation and out of anger injuries were caused with the help of Thunia (Spile).

Shri Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application and submitted that as per the statement of PW-8 (Anand Kumar Patel), the present appellant has also caused injury with Thunia (Spile) and seizure of Thunia was also made from the present appellant, therefore, his case is not similar to that of appellant No.3. He further submitted that if the Signature Not Verified SAN statement of doctor is examined then it can be easily gathered that there were three Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY Date: 2022.02.18 18:06:24 IST injuries noticed on the face of the deceased and as such, the present appellant is

not entitled to be released on bail and the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is liable to be rejected.

We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Considering the statement of the witnesses recorded and the fact that the present appellant is aged about 61 years and has completed almost 5 years in jail and also the fact that the trial will take time to be heard finally, we are of the opinion that appellant No.2-Gautam is entitled to be released on bail.

Accordingly, IA No. 21873/2021 is allowed.

I t is directed that appellant No.2-Gautam be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) with a surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12.05.2022 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                        (SANJAY DWIVEDI)                                           (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                             JUDGE                                                      JUDGE

                                     ac/-




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY
Date: 2022.02.18 18:06:24 IST