Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiyyu @ Rais vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 10480 of 2022
(BHAIYYU @ RAIS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 19-01-2023
Shri Chandra Prakash Purohit - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Kapil Mahant - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.14769/2022, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail
sentence on behalf of the sole appellant Bhayyu @ Rais.
Appellant has filed this criminal appeal against the judgment of
conviction dated 21/09/2022 passed in S.T.No.200088/2015 by VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Ratlam (M.P.), whereby the trial Court has convicted the
appellant under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to under go 05 years RI with
fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submit that appellant is an innocent
person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Co-accused Jaswant
has been acquitted by the trial Court on the basis of same evidence.
Complainant (PW-5) and other eye-witness Saurabh (PW-6) have not identified
the present appellant during their evidence before the trial Court. Appellant has
no criminal record. The trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant without
appreciating the evidence available on record in its true perspective. During the
trial appellant remained on bail and he has not misused the liberty granted to
him. He is in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 21/09/2022. There are so
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 1/20/2023
11:41:15 AM
many material contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses.
Looking to old pendency of the cases for consideration, final conclusion of this
appeal would take sufficient long time and there is a strong case in favour of the
appellant. Appellant is the permanent resident of District Ratlam. Hence, the
execution of the remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant be
suspended till the final disposal of this appeal.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection. However, he
fairly admits that no criminal record has been bound against the present
appellant.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
allegation levelled against the appellant and also taking note of the fact that
complainant (PW-5) and other eye-witness (PW-6) have not identified the
present appellant during their evidence before the trial Court; appellant was on
bail during the trial and there is no complaint that he has misused the liberty
given to him; appellant has no past criminal record and final conclusion of the
appeal will also take sufficient long time. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, I find it is to be a fit case to suspend the remaining
custodial sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.14769/2022 is allowed and it is directed subject to
deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and subject to furnishing
personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five Thousand Only) with separate solvent sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court, the execution of remaining custodial part of
the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 1/20/2023
11:41:15 AM
appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence before
the Registry of this Court on 15/06/2023 and on all such subsequent dates,
which are fixed in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 1/20/2023
11:41:15 AM
