Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 13278 of 2023
(UMESH GOSWAMI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 22-12-2023
Shri Ranjan Banerjee - Advocate for the appellants.
Smt. Ranjana Agnihotri - Deputy Government Advocate for the State.
Reserved on : 19.12.2023
Pronounced on : 22.12.2023
Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.
Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.
Also heard on I.A No.24996/2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant no.1 Umesh Goswami, appellant no.2 Jagdish alias
Nanna Goswami, appellant no.3 Chachchu alias Ravindra Goswami and
appellant no.4 Karan alias Aashutosh Goswami.
Appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 have been convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 452, 147, 323/34 and 323/149 (on two counts) and 323/149 (on
seven counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year, R.I. for 3
months, R.I. for 3 months and NIL with fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.200/-,
Rs.200/- (on each count) and Rs.100/- (on each count), with default
stipulations.
Appellant no.4 has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 323/149 and 323/149 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months,
R.I. for 3 months (on each count) and NIL, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the jail sentence of
appellants was suspended by the trial court till 27.10.2023 (as mentioned in the
application). Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 27.10.2023 has further
extended the period of bail of appellants for a period of two months from
28.10.2023 to 28.12.2023. The maximum jail sentence of appellants is of 1 year
and they were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to them
and also the appeal would take considerable time to conclude. They are ready
to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions,
which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application
for suspension of sentence may be considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the record, this Court is of
the considered opinion that till disposal of this appeal, execution of jail sentence
awarded to the appellants under the impugned judgment deserves to be
suspended. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this
application is allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the
appellants shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail for securing
their presence before the trial Court concerned on 23.01.2024 and on such
other dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2023.12.22 17:34:06 +05'30'
