Aman Daheriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1004 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 4187 of 2022 (AMAN DAHERIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 17-01-2023 Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Y.D. Yadav - Government Advocate for the State.

Heard on I.A.No.19438/2022, which is second application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant-Aman Daheriya. His first application was dismissed on merits.

By the impugned judgment dated 09.4.2022 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No.130/2016 the appellant has been convicted for offence under section 395 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The appellant is in custody since the date of judgment. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. There are material contradictions and omission in the statements of material witnesses.

The appellant is not the main accused. The appellant was on bail during trial also and he never misused the liberty. The appellant has already deposited fine amount. The final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time.

He further submits that although the earlier application of the appellant was dismissed on merits but in the light of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another reported in (2004)7 SCC 528 a n d Kalyan Chandra Sarker Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another reported Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 1/19/2023 5:40:53 PM

in (2005)2 SCC 42 and referred by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 13.07.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4228/2017, this application may be allowed and jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.992 of 2012 and 993 of 2012 regarding the identification of the appellant wherein it was observed that it would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court.

Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Earlier bail application of the appellant was dismissed on merits by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the nature of allegations against the appellant; role attributed by him; gravity of offence; and taking into account his custody period which is less in comparison to the case referred by him. In the present case, trial Court has mentioned in paragraph no.19 of the judgment that the appellant has been identified. The earlier application of the appellant was dismissed on merits on 11.07.2022 and just after a lapse of six months, the instant application has been filed. This Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, aforesaid interlocutory application stands dismissed.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE

julie

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 1/19/2023 5:40:53 PM