Tehsila @ Tehsildar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1027 MP

                                       1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                           BENCH AT GWALIOR
                               CRA-404-2020
                     (Tahsila @ Tehsildar Vs. State of M.P.)


Gwalior, Dated : 21/01/2022

      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Kanhaiya Singhal and Shri Samar Ghuraiya, learned counsel

for the appellant.

      Shri Manish Kumar Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.22592/2021, second application under Section

389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on

behalf of sole appellant. Earlier application (I.A. No.9462/2020) was

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23/03/2021.

Appellant stands convicted under Section 147 of IPC and

sentenced to suffer two years' R.I., under Section 302 read with Section

149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of

Rs.2,000/-, under section 396 read with Section 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act

and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with

default stipulations vide judgment dated 13/12/2019 passed in Case No.

SC (DOCT) 21/2013 by Special Judge (Dakaiti), Bhind, M.P.

As per the prosecution story, an FIR was lodged at about 09.30

AM on 15.05.2008 by complainant Mahaveer Singh to the effect that 3-4

days ago the co-accused Santosh Singh Sikarwar and his uncle Lakhan

Singh had suggested that a second hand tractor of Mahendra Company of

575 D.I. of 2005 model is available for sale for consideration of

Rs.2,45,000/-. If he is inclined to purchase the tractor, the said amount

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-404-2020 (Tahsila @ Tehsildar Vs. State of M.P.)

may be arranged and the tractor can be purchased. The place for the deal

was fixed in Gram Sikroda on 14.05.2018. The deceased Sanjeev trusting

the co-accused Santosh Singh accepted the present offer and had made

arrangement of Rs.2,45,000/-. At about 5.00 p.m. on 14.05.2008, the

deceased was called on spot by the present appellant assuring the

availability of the tractor alongwith seller namely Ahvaran Singh Gurjar,

Bhura Gurjar alongwith other members of the family. All persons

collected at one place and amount of Rs.1,95,000/- was tendered to the

present appellant. The same is alleged to have been handed over to

Ahvaran Singh, however, an exception was taken by Bhura, brother of

Ahvaran insisting for total amount of Rs.2,45,000/-. The deceased side

people resisted the insistence with a condition that unless sale letter is

handed over, they shall not tender the remaining amount. Over such an

issue, heated exchanges took place followed by gun shot fired by

Ahvaran Singh Gurjar causing bullet injury on the hip of the deceased

piercing through stomach. The same led to death of the deceased

Sanjeev.

Shri Kanhaiya Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant contends

that this Court while allowing to withdraw the earlier application for

suspension of sentence on 23/03/2021 had granted liberty to revisit

through fresh application after suffering some further reasonable period

of custody. Learned counsel also submits that during trial the appellant

had suffered jail incarceration for three months and thereafter was

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-404-2020 (Tahsila @ Tehsildar Vs. State of M.P.)

enlarged on bail. He never misused the conditions of bail and regularly

attended the trial. Learned counsel further submits that accepting the

story of the prosecution on its face value neither any act much less overt

act is attributed to the appellant in the context of the alleged offence of

commission of murder of deceased Sanjeev. The applicant was a mere

broker having finalized the deal of sale of second hand tractor between

the deceased and the co-accused Ahvaran Singh. There is no evidence

against the present appellant either triggering the heated discussion

between the deceased party and Ahvaran Singh and other co-accused

persons. The sole allegation against the present appellant is that he was

present on the spot alongwith co-accused and except it no other overtact

is attributed to the appellant. It is also submitted that co-accused- Santosh

Singh has already been extended the benefit of suspension of sentence by

this Court vide order dated 10/12/2021 and the case of the appellant is

akin to the co-accused. Under such circumstances, the complicity of the

appellant in the context of alleged crime with the aid of Section 149 of

IPC is highly suspicious. The appellant had already suffered jail

incarceration since 13/12/2019. The appellant has no criminal

antecedents. He has already suffered social indignation. Further jail

incarceration in the company of with the hardened criminals shall

seriously jeopardized his life and family. On these grounds, learned

counsel prays that execution of the jail sentence of appellant may be

suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-404-2020 (Tahsila @ Tehsildar Vs. State of M.P.)

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and

prayed for its rejection with the submission that there appears to be

conspiracy hatched by the appellant while calling the deceased party on

spot under the pretext of sale and purchase of second hand tractor, where

the incident took place. As such, complicity of the appellant can not be

ruled out.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

submission of learned counsel for the parties but, without expressing any

opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the

application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly, directed that

execution order of jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended

during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to

furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two

Lakhs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine

amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the Registry of

this Court on 10/3/2022, and on further dates as may be directed by the

Registry in that regard, with following further conditions:

(i) Appellant will abide by the terms and conditions of

various circulars and orders issued by the Government

of India and the State Government as well as the local

administration from to time in the matter of maintaining

social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-404-2020 (Tahsila @ Tehsildar Vs. State of M.P.)

avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);

(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that

before releasing appellant, his medical examination be

conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie

found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-19,

then the consequential follow up action including the

isolation/quarantine or any further test required be

undertaken immediately.

(iii) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply

for cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.

        (ROHIT ARYA)                                  (ANAND PATHAK)
           JUDGE                                          JUDGE


rahul
                                                             Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cde4dee4 73fe77953f5, pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D487, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4AB9D159 B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2022.01.22 14:03:19 +05'30'