Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 1788 of 2021
(MUKESH PARMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 09-03-2022
Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant .
Shri Rajesh Joshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A.No.5503/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to appellant.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section(s) 307 r/W 34 of
IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-
with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.01.2021 passed in S.T. No. 180/2012.
Prosecution story in brief is that appellant alongwith co-accused persons
armed with deadly weapon knife assaulted complainant Pankaj on vital part i.e.
stomach and other vital parts of body due to which he has suffered grievous
injuries and have taken away his tractor and trolly costing around 17 lakhs.
Learned counsel for appellants submits that complainant - Pankaj (PW-1)
has no where stated in his statement as to who caused injury found on his body.
On the same set of evidence, co-accused persons have been acquitted while
appellant has been convicted u/S 307 of IPC. Charge for the offence punishable
u/S 307 of IPC was not framed against the applicant. Injuries found on the body of
the complainant were not grievous and it is no where stated that the same were
dangerous to life. Even otherwise, appellant is in custody since 11.11.2020. There
is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. In view of aforesaid, learned
counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant
of the bail to the appellants.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the prayer for
suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of the bail to the appellant and
submits that prosecution has very well proved that offence u/S 307 of IPC has
Signature Not Verified
SAN been made out against the appellant. Referring to para 59 of the impugned
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.03.10 12:17:20 IST judgment, he submits that it has specifically been found that injuries caused to the
complaint were dangerous to life.
Having heard counsel for the rival parties coupled with the fact that
complainant Pankaj(PW-1) has deposed that appellant alongwith other co-accused
persons assaulted him with deadly weapon knife, but has not specifically named
the person as to who has given knife blow to him and that other co-accused
persons have been acquitted in the matter, offence punishable u/S 392 r/W 397 of
IPC has not been proved and also considering other facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for suspension of
the sentence and grant of bail to the appellants. Hence, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the matter I.A.No 5503/2021 is allowed and jail sentence of
the appellants shall remain suspended.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, heshall be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with a solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of
this Court firstly on 11.04.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the
Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A. stands closed.
List in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.03.10 12:17:20 IST
