Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Chaudhary vs State Of M.P. on 20 January, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1 CRA-752-2012
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 752 of 2012
(ASHOK CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 20-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Manish Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent-State.
Shri B.S. Gour, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.6556/2021.
This is 7th application under Section 389 of CrPC seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant
No.3- Neeraj Chaudhary.
Appellant No.3 stands convicted for the offence under Section
302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo LI with fine of Rs.3,000/-,
under Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced to one year RI respectively
with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 14/09/2012 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind in ST No.236 of 2009.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.3-Neeraj Chaudhary submits
that the appellant No.3 has undergone jail incarceration during the
period from 27/7/2010 to 05/02/2011 and thereafter from the date of
judgement up-til now. As such, the appellant has so far suffered ten years'
rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for
suspension of sentence primarily on two counts; firstly, parity with the
main accused Dheeraj, in whose case the sentence has been suspended
for the reason of custody being more than ten years; secondly, the period
of the jail incarceration. Learned counsel referring to the prosecution
case, as adumbrated in the impugned judgment paragraph 2, submits that
it was alleged that Dheeraj had fired a gun shot from mouser gun hitting
on the chest of the deceased Aswani. The appellant alleged to have fired
2 CRA-752-2012
gun shot by 12 bore double barrel gun hitting on the neck of the deceased.
It is submitted that the appellant No.3 is about 35 years of age. There is
no likelihood of early final hearing of the appeal due to COVID-19
pandemic third wave. That apart, the incident since had happened due to
sudden provocation, therefore, in the light of judgment passed in Gurpal
Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 2 SCC 365], this Court may consider
suspension of sentence in the case of appellant No.3.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for
the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer inter-alia contending
that no parity can be claimed with the main accused Dheeraj as in the
case of the appellant No.3, four applications have been dismissed by this
Court. Hence, prayed for rejection of suspension application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment as well as record of trial Court.
Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is apposite to observe
that law of parity in the matter of enlargement on bail or suspension of
sentence is well settled and no exception thereto may be taken unless the
special circumstance to deny bail or suspension of sentence. It is also
settled law that bail is the rule and denial thereof is an exception exists.
Personal liberty is precious right and that cannot be compromised merely
on opposing grant of bail or suspension of sentence. In the instant case,
we are of the considered view that as per allegations made in the FIR,
Dheeraj is the main accused. Since in this case the Co-ordinate Bench
has suspended the sentence regard being had to the fact that he had
undergone 10 years of sentence as on the date of the order, the appellant
No.3 also deserves to be dealt with on parity in the matter of suspension
of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A.No.6556/2021 is hereby allowed and it is
directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.3- Neeraj Chaudhary shall
3 CRA-752-2012
remain under suspension subject to the verification that the amount of fine
has been deposited, on the appellant's furnishing bail bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of concerned CJM for his appearance
before the concerned CJM on 14th March, 2022 and on further dates as
may be fixed by the Registry in this regard with the following further
conditions:-
(1) Appellant will abide by terms and conditions of various
circulars and orders issued by Government of India and
State Government as well as local administration from time
to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing,
physical distancing, hygiene, etc. to avoid proliferation of
Novel Corona Virus (Covid-19).
(2) Concerned jail authorities are directed that before
releasing appellant No.3, medical examination of appellant
be conducted through jail doctor and if it is prima facie
found that he is having any symptoms of Covid-19, then
consequential follow-up action including isolation/
quarantine or any further test required be undertaken
immediately.
State Counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to all the
concerned including concerned police station for necessary information
and action.
Registry is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Court
concerned for necessary compliance.
(ROHIT ARYA) (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pwn*
PAWAN KUMAR
2022.01.20
17:36:46 +05'30'
