Majnoo @ Siddeek vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5916 MP

                                                            1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 281 of 2023
                                       (MOHAMMAD SAKOOR KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                CRA/00736/2023, CRA/00846/2023, CRA/00883/2023, CRA/01765/2023,
                                                       CRA/01790/2023
                          Dated : 12-04-2023
                                Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants Mohd.
                          Sakoor and Hafeez Khan in Cr.A. Nos. 281/2023 and 846/2023 respectively.
                                Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant No.1
                          Jaleel Khan, appellant No.2- Ballu Khan, appellant No.3 Sageer Khan in
                          CRA. No.883/2023.

                                Shri Arunodaya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant           Mohd.
                          Ahmad in CRA. No. 736/2023.
                                Shri Sandeep Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant Majnoo
                          @ Siddeek in CRA.1765/2023.
                                Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant Mohd.
                          Yunus in CRA. No. 1790/2023.
                                Shri Hemand Sen, learned counsel for the objector in all the appeals.
                                Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned G.A. for the respondent / State.

The appeals are admitted for hearing.

Heard on IA No. 185/2023 for appellant Mohd Sakoor Khan in Cr.A. No. 281/2023, I.A. No. 973/2023 for appellant Hafeez Khan in Cr.A. No. 846/2023, I.A. No.1023/2023 for appellant No.5 Jaleel Khan, appellant No.6- Ballu Khan, appellant No.7 Sageer Khan in Cr.A. No.883/2023, I.A. No. 824/2023 for appellant Mohd Ahmad in Cr.A. No. 736/2023, I.A. No. 2424/2023 for appellant Majnoo @ Siddeek in Cr.A. No. 1765/2023 and I.A. No. 2436/2023 for appellant Mohd. Yunus in Cr.A. No. 1790/2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 4/13/2023 3:45:48 PM

cumulatively for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants in their aforesaid respective criminal appeals .

These IAs are arising out of judgment dated 28.12.2022 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 255/2008, by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, Distt. Rewa.

All the appellants in the aforesaid criminal appeals have been convicted under Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.3000/-, under Section 452 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.3000/- and under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 1 year

with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellants by taking this Court to the prosecution story submits that on 24.06.2008 an incident had taken place because of which appellants were tried for committing offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 452 of IPC through P.S. Gud in Crime No. 131/2008. The entire matter is arising out of a singular transaction / occurrence held on 24.06.2008 at around 4 p.m.. The Court below acquitted the appellants from certain offences and held them guilty only for committing offence under Sections 148, 452, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC while convicting and sentencing the appellants in para-91 and 92 of the impugned judgment, the Court below directed that all these sentences should run consecutively in place of concurrently.

Shri Prakash Upadhyay and other counsel appearing for the appellants urged that as per Section 31 read with Section 427 Cr.P.C, in a case of this nature which is arising out of common occurrence, it was just and proper for the Court below to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Code in such a manner so that sentences should run concurrently. Reliance is placed on Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 4/13/2023 3:45:48 PM

the judgments of Supreme Court reported in (2015) 4 SCC 302 ( Nagaraja Rao Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) and (2018) 18 SCC 652 ( Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.). Para- 6 and 5 of judgment of Kuldeep Singh (supra) read thus:

5. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant, that since the occurrence was common, it would be just and appropriate and in the fitness of the matter, that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the sentence should have been ordered to run concurrently.

6. Since the occurrence is the same, and the punishment is under different provisions of IPC, for the same incident, we are satisfied that the sentences awarded under the different provisions of the IPC ought to have been ordered to run concurrently, specially keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case. Ordered accordingly."

(Emphasis Supplied) In the light of aforesaid, it is submitted that the appellants have made out a very strong prima facie case inasmuch as sentences were erroneously directed to be undergone consecutively. The Court below has not assigned iota of reason as to how appellants should go punishment consecutively when occurrence is admittedly common / single. Had it been a punishment concurrently, the appellants would have easily got benefit of bail / suspension of sentence. Apart from this, the final hearing of these appeals are not possible in

near future. Considering the aforesaid, the remaining jail sentence of appellants may be suspended.

Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned G.A. for the State opposed the prayer and supported the finding given in para-91 and 92 of the impugned judgment.

Shri Hemant Sen, learned counsel appearing for the objector opposed the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 4/13/2023 3:45:48 PM

prayer and borrowed the argument of Shri Kashyap.

In the light of judgments of Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh and Nagarja Rao (supra), a strong prima facie case is made out by learned counsel for the appellants. It is not disputed before us that incident is common or putting it differently, it is founded upon a singular incident. Thus, in the light of aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of these appellants.

Accordingly, IA No. 185/2023 in Cr.A. No. 281/2023 , I.A. No.973/2023 in Cr.A. No. 846/2023, I.A. No. 1023/2023 in Cr.A. No. 883/2023, I.A. No. 824/2023 in Cr.A. No. 736/2023, I.A. No. 2424/2023 in Cr.A. No. 1765/2023 and I.A. No. 2436/2023 in Cr.A. No. 1790/2023 are allowed.

Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentences of the appellants are hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant- Mohd. Sakoor Khan in Cr.A. No. 281/2023, appellant Hafeez Khan in Cr.A. No. 846/2023, appellant No.1 Jaleel Khan, appellant No.2- Ballu Khan, appellant No.3 Sageer Khan in Cr.A. No.883/2023, appellant Mohd, Ahmad in Cr.A. No. 736/2023, appellant Majnoo @ Siddeek in Cr.A. No. 1765/2023 and appellant Mohd. Yunus in Cr.A. No. 1790/2023 be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with one solvent surety and a local surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Rewa on 12th June, 2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

C c as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 4/13/2023 3:45:48 PM

(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)) JUDGE JUDGE

sarathe

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 4/13/2023 3:45:48 PM