Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikash Kuchbandiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3261 of 2018
(VIKASH KUCHBANDIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 18-11-2022
Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant No.3- Navneet @
Nabbu.
Shri Yash Soni, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Sagar, learned counsel for the objector.
IA No.19204/2021 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to appellant No. 3 Navneet @ Nabbu is taken up.
The present appellant has been convicted under Section 148 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, under Section
302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Court was kind
enough in granting benefit of suspension of sentence to Rahul @ Chhotu @
Kokha and Jagdish @ Jaggu on 08.03.2019. By taking this Court to the
prosecution story, Shri Amit Dubey, Advocate submits that role allegedly
played by this appellant is lesser than what has been played by aforesaid two
persons who got the benefit of suspension of sentence. Apart from this, PW-2
and PW-3, the alleged eye witnesses have not specified the role played by the
present appellant. This court may grant benefit of suspension of sentence on the
principles of parity.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, G.A. opposes the prayer on the basis of objection.
Shri Sagar, learned counsel for the objector also opposed the
prayer by placing the reliance on order sheet dated 25.06.2019
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Signing time: 11/18/2022
4:55:52 PM
which shows that IAs filed by appellant No. 4 Vishal, appellant No.3
Navneet and appellant No. 5 Vivek were considered. After arguing
for some time, I.A. was withdrawn. I.A. No. 806/2020 was
considered by this Court on 13.03.2022, This Court record as
under:-
"Interestingly, on 08.03.2019 the order
suspending sentence of appellant No.2 Jagdish @ Jaggu
was passed and thereafter the present appellants filed
I.A. Nos.5499/19 and 6743/19 for suspension of
sentence. We find substance in the argument of Shri
Sagar that if these appellants’ case is similar to
that of Jagdish @ Jaggu, there was no reason why
similar arguments would not have been advanced on
25.06.2019. A careful reading of order sheet dated
25.06.2019 shows that these appellants argued their
applications in great detail and thereafter prayed for
withdrawal of the same. Thus, we find substance in the
argument of Shri Sagar that the reason for withdrawal
must be that the Court was not impressed on the
question of parity. Thus, on the ground of parity, no case
is made out for suspension of sentence.
Considering the facts and circumstances on
record and the finding of the Court below in Para 35
of the impugned judgment, at this stage, no case is made
out for suspending the sentence of the appellant No.4
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Signing time: 11/18/2022
4:55:52 PM
Vishal and appellant No.5 Vivek.
Shri Sagar submits that for the same reason the present application
deserves to be dismissed because present appellant is sailing in the same boat in
which appellant No. 4 Vishal and appellant No. 5 Vivek were sailing and this
Court has disallowed this application.
We have heard the parties on this aspect.
We find substance in the arguments of Sagar, accordingly at this stage
no case is made out for grant benefit of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, aforesaid I.A. is dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
Akm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Signing time: 11/18/2022
4:55:52 PM
