Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sarvar Ahmad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11274 of 2022
(SARVAR AHMAD AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 09-01-2023
Shri P. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri A. N. Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
None for respondent No.2.
Trial Court record has been received.
Heard on admission.
Prima facie, this appeal seems to be arguable. Hence, admitted for final
hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.22957/2022, an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants, pending the
appeal.
Appellants h a v e been convicted for commission of offence under
Sections 323 r/w 34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year
and fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations and under Section 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 1 year and fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulations vide judgment dated
11.11.2022 passed in SCATR No.200045/2016 (State of M.P. vs. Sarvar
Ahmad and others) by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Raisen District Raisen(M.P.).
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the course of
trial appellants were on bail. They have not misused the liberty granted by way
of bail during trial. It is further submitted that a short sentence has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 1/10/2023
11:07:04 AM
awarded by the trial Court and there is no possibility of hearing of this appeal in
near future. It is further submitted that after conviction and passing of jail
sentence, learned trial Court itself has suspended the jail sentence of the
appellants till 11.12.2022. Thereafter, this Court vide its order dated 9.12.2022
has extended the bail upto 9.1.2023. It is submitted that prosecution had not
been successful before the trial Court to prove the case. Trial Court has not
properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. Therefore, appellants
have a fair chance to succeed in this appeal. Hence, it has been prayed that the
execution of jail sentence of appellants be suspended and they be released on
bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
the grant of bail to the appellants.
Having considered the short nature of sentence and the fact that there is
no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future, I am inclined to suspend
the remaining jail sentence of the appellants.
Consequently, I.A. No.22957/2022 is allowed. The execution of jail
sentence of appellants is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine
amount, if not already deposited. It is directed that the appellants be released
on bail on their furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the
trial Court on 7.6.2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that
Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 1/10/2023
11:07:04 AM
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 1/10/2023
11:07:04 AM
