Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sabbir @ Sahab vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 959 of 2016
(SABBIR @ SAHAB Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-04-2023
Shri Sourabh Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Puneet Shroti - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A.No.20677/2021, which is second application on behalf of
the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Of a note, the appellant's first application (I.A.No.6764/2016) faced
dismissal as got withdrawn vide order dated 25.08.2020. Needless to mention
that previously the appellant was granted two weeks temporary bail for
attending his sister's marriage.
By the judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed by learned V Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T.No.515/2012, the appellant stood convicted
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine
of Rs.1,000/- failing which RI for six months; Section 307 of IPC and
sentenced to suffer 10 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- failing which further RI
for six months and has been convicted under Sections 25(1b)(a) and 27(1) of
the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer three-three years RI each, failing which
RI for three-three months each.
Of a further note, a report dated 01.03.2023 obtained from the jail-
authority bespeaks that the appellant has served jail sentence of 10 years, 7
months & 24 days.
As per the portrayal of prosecution story, the appellant, wielded with
country-made pistol, had reached the house of the complainant Aneesh and
inflicted gunshot injury not only to Aneesh but also to his son Sharfaraz, who
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 4/26/2023
10:11:40 AM
came to rescue his father. The consequence of firearm injury turned into death
of Sharfaraz and causing injury to Aneesh, who could narrowly escape his
death.
The foremost ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is
about the period of incarceration inasmuch as he submits that the appellant is
rotting in jail for more than 10 years. He propounds that as a whole the intention
of the appellant was never to take the life of anybody but in a heat of passion,
he fired gunshots without naming anyone and as the luck would have it, it
abruptly hit the deceased. Ergo, no case under Section 302 of IPC is made out.
To reinforce his contention, Shri Shrivastava places reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court in re Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
rendered in Criminal Appeal No.308/202 and also on the decision in re
Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 788. On these
premise, he implores that the appellant may be granted bail.
In contrast, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and
submits that mere incarceration of more than 10 years would not invariably
make the accused entitle to be released on bail. Focusing towards the nature of
crime, which was committed in a densely populated area that too at 6.30
p.m.only, he submits that it will not yield any result even in the face of 10 years
confinement. In fact, the appellant used to harass the daughter of injured
Aneesh and was forcing her to get married with him. Complainant Aneesh along
with his daughter reached the police station and made a complaint on
22.03.2012 not only against the appellant but also against his friend namely
Sunny. Infuriated with lodging of complaint, the appellant along with
accomplice came to the house of complainant Aneesh with an intention to kill
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 4/26/2023
10:11:40 AM
him and thereafter the appellant fired gunshot with his pistol towards Aneesh,
who sustained injury on his left leg and unfortunately second gunshot hit his son
Sharfaraz's chest, who got drenched with blood and finally succumbed to the
blow. In the face of intentionally committed heinous crime, Shri Shroti implores
that the application deserves outright dismissal.
We have patiently heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
rival parties and also meticulously perused the record.
Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties,
primarily we find it apposite to consider the verdict of the Apex Court in true
perspective. Obviously, the Supreme Court in re Saudan Singh (supra) has
observed that if the accused has served sentence of more than 10 years and
there are no any extenuating circumstances, the bail can be granted to him. In
the broader sense, the Supreme Court has given leeway to the Court hearing the
application that if in the considered opinion of the Court any extenuating
reasons are available for rejecting the application, the bail can very well be
denied by the Court.
Adverting to the circumstances underlying here in the case at hand, it is
seen that albeit as of now the appellant has served jail sentence of around 10
years & 9 months. Indeed, the deceased breathed his last only because the
complainant party resisted the draconian act of the appellant who was
relentlessly molesting and browbeating the complainant's daughter to get
married with him. Astoundingly, the cost of making police complaint, was paid
by the girl, by losing her brother's life and her father was carried almost near to
death. Ergo, the role of the appellant and the underlying reason for committing
the crime, make us reluctant to admit bail to the appellant.
In view of the above discourse, the application (I.A.No.20677/2021) is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 4/26/2023
10:11:40 AM
dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sudesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 4/26/2023
10:11:40 AM
