Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu @ Manjra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 566 of 2015
(SONU @ MANJRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 18-11-2022
Ms. Sharmila Sharma, counsel for the appellant No.2 Suraj S/o Prabhulal
and appellant No.3 Harish @ Pintu.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.14519/2022, a repeat (fourth) application under Section
389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.2 Suraj and also heard on IA
No.14517/2022, a repeat (fourth) application under Section 389 (1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of appellant No.3 Harish @ Pintu on the ground that both the
appellants have already completed ten years of incarceration.
T he present appellants have been convicted and sentenced by learned
14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, District Indore (MP) in Sessions Trial
No.88/2013 vide judgment dated 16th January, 2015, as under: -
C onviction Se nte nce
Section Act RI Fine Imprisonment in lieu of fine
amount
302 r/w 34 IPC Life Rs.10,000/ 1 year additional RI
324 r/w 34 IPC 1 year Rs.1,000/- 3 Months Additional RI
25 (1b) (b) Arms 1 year Rs.1,000/- 3 Months additional RI
Act
Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the incident took place on
t h e spur of the moment and the appellant Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on
08.10.2012 and 17.10.2012 respectively.
Counsel has also submitted that the appeal is of the year 2015 and its
final disposal is likely to take sufficiently long time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-11-2022
19:12:46
Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants prays for
suspension of jail sentence of the appellants and grant of bail to them.
Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the
prayer. However, it is not denied that the appellants have already completed ten
years of incarceration.
On due consideration of the submissions and taking note of the fact that
the appellants have already completed ten years of incarceration and the fact
that the final disposal of the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time, this
Court is of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellants deserves to
be suspended.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, IA
No.14519/2022 and I.A. No.14517/2022 are allowed, subject to depositing the
fine amount, if any, and it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by the
appellant Nos.2 and 3 in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before concerned trial Court, the
execution of the custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant
Nos.2 and 3 shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant Nos.2 and 3, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
presence before the concerned trial Court on 30.01.2023 and on all such
subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the concerned Court in this regard.
It is made clear that after being released on bail, if the appellants again
indulges themselves in any criminal activity, the learned Judge of the trial Court
shall, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, be at liberty to
cancel this order, without further reference to this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Certified copy as per rules.
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-11-2022
19:12:46
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Pankaj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-11-2022
19:12:46
