Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajveer Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9093 of 2022
(RAJVEER GURJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 13-02-2023
Mr. Rajmani Bansal - Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. P.P.S Bajeetha - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Mr. Atul Gupta - Advocate for respondent/complainant.
I.A No. 15835/2022, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for
assisting learned State counsel is taken up, considered and allowed for the
reasons mentioned therein.
Learned counsel for the complainant and his Associates are permitted to
assist learned State counsel during hearing of the case.
Also heard on I.A. No. 19437 of 2022 and I.A. No.1875 of 2023,
which are first applications under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail moved by appellant No.1-Rajveer Gurjar and
appellant No.2-Naresh Singh Gurjar respectively.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 17.09.2022 passed in
Special Case No. 36/2010 by Special Judge, M.P.D.V.P.K. Act, Murena (M.P.)
whereby, appellants stood convicted under Section 307/149, 325/19 (two
counts) and 148 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 5 years RI, 3 years
RI and 2 years RI with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.1000/- and NA respectively with
default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted the appellants and without proper appreciation of facts of
the case. Prosecution witnesses have made an allegation against the appellants
and co-accused persons by adopting the manner of pick and choose. He
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 2/14/2023
9:57:46 AM
further submits that the appellants have served more than five months of
incarceration. There are material omission and contradictions in the statements
of prosecution witnesses. Appellants have not attributed the role to cause
firearm injury. Present criminal appeal is likely to take long time to conclude.
Hence, prayed to suspend the jail sentence and grant of bail to appellants.
Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for
its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
without commenting on merits of the case, I.A. No. 19437 of 2022 and I.A.
No.1875 of 2023 are hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if
not already deposited, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with a solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of the
appellants and shall remain suspended and they be released on bail. The
appellants are further directed to mark their appearance before the Office of this
Court o n 19/04/2023 and on subsequent dates given by the Office in this
regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 2/14/2023
9:57:46 AM
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 2/14/2023
9:57:46 AM
