Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash @ Chandra Prakash Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1610 of 2022
(PRAKASH @ CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-05-2022
Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anil Upadhyaya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.7155/2022, an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
T he appellant has been convicted in S.T.No.866/2012 (State of M.P Vs.
Vishwanath Singh and others) for commission of offence under Sections 402, 450,
395 and 397 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years in each
offence and for Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act and has been sentenced
to undergo 1 year RI & 5 years RI respectively and fine of Rs.500/- for each
offence with default stipulations by ASJ/ Special Judge No.2 (Electricity Act )
Bhopal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that FIR was lodged
against four unidentified persons by Rajesh Sen on 29.07.2012, appellant was
arrested on 26.08.2012 whereas his identification parade was conducted on
19.10.2012, almost after a period of one month and 22 days of his arrest and in the
meantime, appellant was shown to the witnesses. He has taken me through the
evidence of PW-2 Rajesh Sen who in his evidence has stated that at the time of
incident of loot, house owner Korsolia's mother and his son Saurabh were inside
the house. They have not been examined as witnesses by the prosecution before
the trial Court. Learned counsel has further contended that even prior to
conduction of test identification parade in jail, appellant was again shown to the
witnesses. Therefore, identification parade is of no consequence. Learned counsel
further submitted that no identification parade regarding identification of looted and
seized articles was ever conducted. No one in his evidence has deposed about
looted and seized articles. Learned counsel further contended that as per the FIR,
only four persons had caused the loot. There is no specific evidence on record
that any other person had extended logistic support to accused persons to facilitate
commission of offence. Therefore, no offence under Section 395 of IPC is made
out. There was no evidence before trial Court to convict the appellant/accused for
commission of offence under Sections 395 and 397 of Cr.P.C. Appellant has no
criminal past. Appellant has already suffered more than a year sentence. Therefore,
it has been prayed that appellant be released on bail.
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail
application but has fairly admitted that appellant has no criminal past.
On a perusal of impugned judgment, evidence of prosecution witnesses and
other material on record, it is revealed that identification parade was conducted
almost after one month and 22 days of the arrest of the appellant and prior to that
he was shown to witnesses in police station and his photograph was published in
the newspaper. Looted mobiles and passports have not been identified by anyone
belonging to Karsoliya family. Appellant has already undergone sentence for a
period of almost a year.
Therefore, having considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses
available on record and the argument that only four persons were alleged in the
commission of loot but later charge-sheet was filed against seven persons and
appellant has been convicted under Section 395 and 397 of IPC, however, without
expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am inclined to release the
appellant on bail.
Consequently, I.A.No.7155/2022 is allowed. The execution of jail
sentence of appellant- Prakash @ Chandra Prakash Singh is hereby suspended
subject to depositing of the fine amount, (if not already deposited). It is directed
that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond to a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each of one-
one lakh amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to
appear before the Trial Court on 12.09.2022 and also on such other dates, as
may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
Digitally signed
by BIJU BABY JUDGE
Date: 2022.05.05
15:44:28 +05'30'
b
