Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Rajaji vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7597 of 2023
(YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ RAJAJI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-12-2023
Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate along with Brajesh Kumar Tyagi-Advocate
for appellants.
Shri A.K. Nirankari-Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.21641 of 2023, second application under Section 389
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant No.1-Yogendra Pratap Singh alias Rajaji.
Present appellant stands convicted under Section 412 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulations v i d e judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
08.06.2023 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (Madhya Pradesh)
in Sessions Trial No. 400351/2012.
The present appellant so far has already undergone jail sentence of 7
months as submitted by learned counsel for appellants.
The prosecution story, as found proved, is that a Trolly No. H.R.38 R
7702, whereon Poclain Machine was installed, was being taken by Rajjak,
Sahum and Barkat (since deceased) from Pune to Punjab. On 22.6.2012 as it
reached Biaora, it surfaced that driver Rajjak was not picking up his phone and
the machine had not reached Punjab. Later on, machine and trolley were found
parked at NH 76 near Jhansi - Kota road and dead bodies of the driver Rajjak,
co-driver Sahum and cleaner Barkat were found near Suket River, A.B. road.
Prima facie it transpired that Rajjak, Sahun and Barkat had been killed by
unkno wn miscreants, who had taken away poclain machine worth
Rs.62,00,000/- alongwith trailer worth with Rs.24,00,000/- after killing Rajjak,
S ahum and Barkat. On marg intimation and dehati nalishi offence was
investigated into and Crime No.168 of 2012 was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 201 of IPC. Upon completion of
investigation including recording of statements, collection of evidence and
necessary formalities, challan was filed. On committal, the Sessions Court on
appreciation of evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the present
appellant as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant, while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submits that present appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. The impugned judgment is based on
surmises and conjectures and suffers from vice of perversity. There is no
connectivity of the present appellant with the commission of murder. Appellant
so far has suffered actual jail sentence of 7 months out of five years RI as
awarded. That apart, similarly placed co-accused/appellant No.2-Rajesh
Chauhan, under similar facts and circumstances, has already extended benefit of
suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 8/11/2023. He seeks
parity in treatment. It is further submitted that instant appeal is of the year 2023
and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in the near future.
Hence, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellant on the ground of long incarceration.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to present appellant looking to the nature and the gravity of offence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court is not
inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
present appellant on merits, however, regard being had to the fact that under
similar facts and circumstances, benefit of suspension of sentence has already
been extended to similarly placed appellant No.2-Rajesh Chauhan vide order
dated 8/11/2023 and that appellant so far has suffered actual jail sentence of
seven months out of the RI for 5 years as awarded coupled with the fact that
the appeal is pending since 2023 and is not likely to be decided in the near
future, we are of the view that appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.21641 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant No.1-Yogendra Pratap Singh shall remain
suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on
bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court subject to verification of factum regarding deposit of fine amount.
Present appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court
first on 14/02/2024 and thereafter, on other subsequent dates as may be fixed
in this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
