Afsar Ali vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 12441 MP

                                                                                              1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                      AT GWALIOR

                                          BEFORE

                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 772 of 2014

       Between:-

       AFSAR ALI S/O SARWAR ALI, AGED ABOUT 20
       YEARS, R/O MOHHAMAD GARH, POLICE
       STATIOIN GYARASPUR DISTRICT VIDISHA
       (MADHYA PRADESH). AT PRESENT IN JAIL.


                                                                         .....APPELLANT
       (BY SHRI ATUL GUPTA -ADVOCATE)

       AND

       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THROUGH POLICE      STATION GYARASPUR
       DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH

                                                                       .....RESPONDENT

       (BY SHRI PPS BAJEETA -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Reserved on                                   :      30-06-2022
       Delivered on                                  :      16-09-2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        2

                                              ORDER

Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Murali Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, (2021) 1 SCC 726, Rizan and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh through the Chief Secretary, AIR 2003 SC 976, Ram Pujan and other Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 2418 and the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ramkrishna alias Sanju Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. in CR.A.No.686/2007 to advance arguments that he may be given the benefit of undergone to the sentence which is already undergone by him, on the basis of compromise reached between the parties.

Aforesaid prayer was opposed by counsel for the respondent/State on the ground that matter involves offence under Section 307 of IPC.

It requires that matter is to be heard more extensively and therefore, is released for hearing in due course.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil*

ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2022.09.10 11:16:50

-07'00'