Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra @ Jitu @ Kapala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9297 of 2023
(JITENDRA @ JITU @ KAPALA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-08-2023
Shri G.S. Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No. 13367/2023, first application under Section
389(1) Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant- Jitendra @ Jeetu stands convicted under Section 399 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/, Section 400 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/, Section
402 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/ and
Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year's RI with
fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation vid e judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 13.07.2023 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK), Sheopur in
SC DOCT No. 05/2020.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment
passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjecture and surmises.
The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the
present appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There
are material contractions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. The
appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty but on the
date of judgment he could not remain present, therefore, arrest warrant was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 04-08-2023
10:32:13 AM
issued. Thereafter within a week, he was arrested and produced before the
Court, and the impugned judgment was passed against him. Appellant was aged
about 22 years at the time of incident. No criminal antecedent was reported
against the appellant. Appellant is in custody since 13.07.2023. Fine amount has
already been deposited by the appellant. The jail sentence of appellant was
suspended by learned Trial Court, under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. There is
no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be
suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection. He contends that appellant is convicted
on proper appreciation of evidence. No case is made out for suspension of
sentence.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and also
subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 09.10.2023 and on further
dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.
Accordingly, I.A. No.13367/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
Call for the record of the Court below and list thereafter for final hearing
in due course.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 04-08-2023
10:32:13 AM
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Avi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 04-08-2023
10:32:13 AM
