Chhote Lal @ Chhodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13784 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 1544 of 2014 (CHHOTE LAL @ CHHODIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 23-08-2023 Shri Sanjay Pandey - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Ajay Shukla - Govt. Advocate for the State.

Heard on IA No.19988/2023, which is fifth bail application filed u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Nos.7 Kamlesh and No.10 Nittu @ Netram (renumbered as 6 & 9 respectively) is

taken up and considered alongwith the reply of the State.

Also heard on IA No.20336/2023 which is fifth application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No.6 Komal Singh (renumbered as 5).

This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 30.05.2014 passed in Special Case No.245/2011 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen (M.P.) whereby appellants have been convicted u/Ss.148, 323/149 (four counts) and 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year, RI for 6 months (each counts) and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- with default

stipulation.

Learned counsel for appellant Nos. 7, 10 and 6 (renumbered as 6, 9 and

5) submits that this Court has enlarged the appellant no.9 Vishnu Prasad (renumbered as 8), appellant no. 2 Chotelal (renumbered as 1), appellant no. 3 Rakesh (renumbered as 2), appellant no. 4 Lacchu (renumbered as 3), appellant no.5 Bhairam (renumbered as 4), appellant no. 8 Rinku (renumbered as 7) on bail while suspending his sentence. It is contended by the counsel that the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 8/26/2023 12:06:15 PM

aforesaid appellants were enlarged on bail while considering the fact that he had suffered 9 years and 11 months of incarceration. It is contended by the counsel that the present appellant No. 5, 6 and 9 have also suffered almost 10 years of sentence and within 8 to 10 days they will be completing 10 years of their sentence. Accordingly, learned counsel contends that in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 697, the present appellants also deserve to be enlarged on bail.

It is further contended by the counsel that the case of present appellants no. 7, 10 and 6 (renumbered as 6, 9 and 5) stand on similar footing with the

case of co-accused who had been enlarged on bail. It is contended by the counsel that the grievous injury has been inflicted by the main accused- Daulat, therefore, the present appellants be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that while taking into consideration the active role played by the present appellants, the application for suspension of sentence deserves to be rejected.

Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the case diary. The prosecution story reflects that on account of negligible fracas, the accused persons assaulted the deceased Mr. Pooran Singh and as a result of which Pooran Singh died. As per prosecution story, all the accused persons were carrying lathi and co-accused -Vishnu Prasad who has been enlarged on bail was also carrying lathi, therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the death was as a result of one grievous injury on the head which according to prosecution, was inflicted by main accused-Daulat and also the period of incarceration of almost 10 years, in the light of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh (Supra) this Court deem it fit to enlarge the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 8/26/2023 12:06:15 PM

present appellants on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 19988/2023 & IA No.20336/2023 are allowed. It is directed that jail sentence of appellant No. 6 (renumbered as 5) - Komal Singh S/o Nathuram, appellant No. 7 (renumbered as 6) - Kamlesh S/o Daulatram and appellant No. 10 (renumbered as 9) - Nittu @ Netram S/o Murarilal will remain under suspension on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned available Magistrate for their appearance before concerned available Magistrate on 18.12.2023 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this regard which shall be of frequency not less than once a year.

In addition of above, the appellants shall also mark their appearance once i n a month at police station concerned, failing which Officer In-charge of concerned Police station shall be at liberty to issue arrest warrant against the appellants with due intimation to the trial Court and this Court. Police Station shall also submit a report of compliance of the aforesaid direction on a monthly basis to Registry of this Court.

Registry is directed that in case no report is filed within the prescribed time, then the matter be placed before appropriate Bench.

In case, appellants are found absent on any date fixed by the concerned

available Magistrate, the concerned available Magistrate shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing their presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. Certified copy as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 8/26/2023 12:06:15 PM

(SHEEL NAGU) (MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE JUDGE

vivek

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 8/26/2023 12:06:15 PM