Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ibrahim @ Kallu vs State Of M.P. on 21 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 734 of 2012
(IBRAHIM @ KALLU AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 21-12-2023
Shri Sanjay Gupta - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri A. P. S. Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A.No. 22732 of 2023, fifth repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of the appellant No.1-Ibrahim alias Kallu. His fourth application (IA
No. 2482/2020) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.09.2021.
Appellant No.1-Ibrahim alias Kallu stands convicted under Section
302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of
Rs.2,000/- and under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo two
years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2012 passed by Seventh
Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Case No.172 of 2010.
Appellant so far has undergone jail incarceration of 11 years 11 month.
He is in jail since the date of judgment.
A s per the prosecution story, deceased Naziya married the present
appellant on 25.03.2007 according to Muslim rituals. After marriage, inlaws of
the deceased including present appellant demanded dowry of Rs.1.00 lac along
with a motorcycle and harassed her therefor. After the matter having been
materialized before the Panchayat, the deceased was brought back to her inlaws'
house. On 29.12.2009 the family members of the deceased were informed about
the deceased being admitted in the hospital due to burn injuries. During
treatment deceased died on 11.1.2010. Accordingly, a case was registered at
Crime No. 8/2010 against the accused persons. After completing investigation,
police filed Challan. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the
Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of evidence placed
on record has convicted and sentenced the present appellant and co-accused
Ruksana as referred above.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment inter alia supported the instant application primarily on the ground of
long jail incarceration as so far, the present appellant has already undergone jail
sentence of 11 years 11 months. It is further submitted that present appellant
has been falsely been implicated in the case. The appeal is of the year 2012 and
there is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in the near future. Under
s uc h circumstances, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to present appellant.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for
rejection of the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
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 only fact that
present appellant so far has already undergone jail incarceration of 11 years 11
months, coupled with the fact that the appeal being of the year 2012 is not likely
to be decided in the near future, we are of the view that present appellant is
entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No. 22732 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of the appellant No.1-Ibrahim alias Kallu 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.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac
and Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Appellant No.1 is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court
first on 26-02-2024 and 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.
(ROHIT ARYA) (ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE JUDGE
yog
YOGESH VERMA
2023.12.21
17:12:42 +05'30'
