Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghunath @ Natthu Kurmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7386 of 2022
(RAGHUNATH @ NATTHU KURMI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-09-2022
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior counsel with Shri Pawan Gujar, learned
counsel for the appellants.
Shri Amit Pandey, learned P.L. for the respondent-State.
Record has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal seems to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.15897/2022, which is an application u/S.389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant No.1
Raghunath @ Natthu and appellant No.2 Sovat Singh Lodhi and release them
on bail.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.08.2022
passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.459/2015 whereby
learned Sessions Judge found appellants guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 325 read with section 34 of IPc and and Section 409 r/w
Section 120B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I for five years each
with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned trial Court did
not consider the provision of Section 389(3) of C.P.C. because offence under
Section 325 of the IPC is bailable one, so the sentence of the appellants should
have suspended by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that the learned
trial Court without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly wrongly
found appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. He further submitted that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/22/2022
3:59:26 PM
there is no minimum sentence is prescribed under section 325 of IPC. During
trial of the case, appellant No.1 Raghunath @ Natthu remained in custody since
08.06.2015 to 18.10.2015 and appellant No.2 Sovat Singh Lodhi remained in
custody since 17.06.2015 to 18.10.2015 and appellants are in custody since the
date of judgment i.e. 16.08.2022. Hence, prayed for suspension of the jail
sentence and release of the appellants on bail since the hearing of this appeal
will take time.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and
submitted that from the prosecution evidence, guilt of the appellants was
proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellants. So, the sentence of the appellants
should not be suspended.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, contention of learned
counsel for the appellants and the fact that appellant No.1 Raghunath @ Natthu
remained in custody since 08.06.2015 to 18.10.2015 and appellant No.2 Sovat
Singh Lodhi remained in custody since 17.06.2015 to 18.10.2015 and
appellants are in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 16.08.2022 and
according to listing policy the hearing of this appeal is likely to take long time,
the application is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence
alone passed against the appellant No.1 Raghunath @ Natthu and appellant
No.2 Sovat Singh Lodhi shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and they be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety each in like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of
this Court on 19.12.2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this
behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/22/2022
3:59:26 PM
Let the case be listed for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
sarathe
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/22/2022
3:59:26 PM
