Chintu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3170 MP

                                   - : 1 :-
                                                           CRA No. 4677/2019



HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
    (SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                          CRA No. 4677 of 2019
           (Chintu S/o. Dilip Kanjar & others. V/s. State of M.P.)
Date: 07.03.2022 :
         Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the appellants No.1
and 6.
         Shri   Mukesh     Sharma,     learned    Panel   Advocate      for
respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.9666/2019, a repeat (2nd) application filed on behalf of appellant No.1 - Chintu; and I.A. No.4395/2021, a repeat (2nd) application filed on behalf of appellant no.6-Mannu for suspension of their custodial sentence. The appellants stand convicted u/s. 394 and 397 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 10-10 years RI and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- - 2,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 14.5.2019 passed in S.T. No.251/2018.

As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged by P.W.1 and P.W.2 on 19.4.2018 disclosing that they were travelling by Car bearing Registration No. MP-39-C-1810 which was driven by Azad. They were going from Rajgarh to Bhopal. Near about at 2.30 they hardly travelled 10 Kms. From Rajgarh, all of a sudden all the four tires of the car got burst, 4-5 few miscreants came there in motorcycles armed with sticks and one of them put a knife on their son. They have looted cash, gold, laptop, mobile phone, etc. after assaulting them. The FIR was registered against the unknown persons. Later on, all the appellants were arrested and looted articles were recovered from them. They were put to TIP conducted by P.W.8 in which the present appellants No.1 and 6 were not identified.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.1 did not identify the appellants No.1 and 6 in her evidence, but her husband on the next day of his evidence identified these appellants, which cannot be relied upon. Appellants No.1 and 6 are youth of 19 and 20 years and

- : 2 :-

CRA No. 4677/2019

their custody along with hardened criminals for longer period will ruin their future. The other appellants are habitual offenders and they were identified by the complainants. The appellants No.1 and 6 are in custody since last three years and there is no likelihood of final hearing of this appeal in near future. He, therefore, prays for grant of suspension of custodial sentence of appellants No. 1 and 6.

On the other hand, the learned Panel Advocate appearing for the respondent/State prays for rejection of the application.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the period of custody, I find it is to be a fit case to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellants No.1 and 6.

Accordingly, I.A. No.9666/2019 and I.A. No.4395/2021 are allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, if already not deposited, with the trial Court and on furnishing personal bonds by the appellant No.1 - Chintu and appellant No.6 - Mannu in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Forty Thousand only) each with separate solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence of the appellants No.1 and 6 shall remain suspended till final disposal of this appeal. I.A. No.4394/2021, an application for urgent hearing also stands disposed of.

The appellants No.1 and 6 after being enlarged on bail shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 21.09.2022 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this behalf.

List for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2022.03.07 19:34:38 +05'30'