Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jumman Mansuri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2023
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRR No. 5526 of 2023
(JUMMAN MANSURI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-12-2023
Shri Prashant Chourasia - Advocate for applicant.
Shri D.P.Patel - Dy.Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.
Also heard on IA No.29133/2022, application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 69 days in filing present revision
petition.
Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is formally
opposed by learned counsel for respondent, sufficient cause is made out to
condone the delay.
Accordingly, IA No. 29133/2022 stands allowed and delay of 69 days in
preferring present revision is hereby condoned.
Further heard on I.A.No.29132/2023, an application under Section 397
(1) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
The applicant has been convicted vide judgment dated 15/6/2023 passed
by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur in Cr.A.
No.75/2023, arising out of judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed by JMFC,
Chhatarpur in RCT No.2101524/2016, whereby learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and affirmed the judgment passed by
the trial Court wherein the trial Court found the applicant guilty for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and sentenced
him to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for two years
with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with usual default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial Court as
well as appellate Court without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly,
wrongly found the applicant guilty for the aforesaid offence. The applicant is in
custody since 15/06/2023. Hence, prayed for suspension of the jail sentence
and release the applicant on bail, as the final hearing of this revision will take
time.
P e r contra, learned counsel for State while opposing the prayer,
supported the impugned judgment. He contends that judgment impugned is
passed upon proper evaluation of evidence placed on record, so the sentence
of the applicant should not be suspended.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, contention of learned
counsel for the applicant, short sentence awarded to the applicant and the fact
that applicant is in judicial custody since 15/06/2023, this revision is of the year
2023 and hearing of this revision will take time, the application is allowed. It is,
therefore, directed that execution of the jail sentence passed against applicant
shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision and he be released
on bail subject to depositing fine amount, if not already deposited and on
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only)
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the trial Court concerned on 15.02.2024 and on such
further dates as may be fixed by it in this regard during the pendency of this
revision.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
sm
