Raj Yadav @ Hariraj Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12913 MP

                                                              1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 1156 of 2016
                                       (RAJ YADAV @ HARIRAJ YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 09-08-2023
                                Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for appellant.

                                Shri Yogesh Dhande - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.18874 of 2022 - an application for suspension of sentence.

This is the third application seeking for suspension of sentence and bail

filed on behalf of appellant-Raj Yadav, who has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and further convicted under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations vide impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of sentence of the appellant mainly on the ground of period of custody undergone by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 24.04.2012 namely for a period of about 11 years. Hence, he pleads that the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.10.2021 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh vs. The State of U.P. and others) be considered and he be granted bail on the ground of the period of detention.

However, learned counsel for the State disputes the same. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find that the relief sought for by the appellant can be granted. The exceptions carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clear and cogent. It refers to the manner in which the incident has occurred. In the instant case the deceased was shot at point blank Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 8/11/2023 3:36:57 PM

range not once but twice. Therefore, the manner in which the offence has been committed is also of consideration while enlarging the accused on bail on the ground of the period of detention. If that is to be applied, no benefit is to be granted to the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.18874 of 2022 is rejected.

                                    (RAVI MALIMATH)                                    (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                      CHIEF JUSTICE                                         JUDGE

                          Loretta




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 8/11/2023
3:36:57 PM