Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harshpreet Saluja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2387 of 2016
(HARSHPREET SALUJA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 10-01-2023
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Jasneet Singh
Hora - Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.S.Chouhan - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
I.A. No.25191 of 2022 and I.A.No.25192 of 2022 for urgent hearing
in winter vacation are disposed off as being misconceived.
I.A.No.25528 of 2022 for taking additional document on record is
allowed.. The document is taken on record.
I.A.No.16577 of 2022 is the fourth application seeking for
suspension of sentence and bail filed by appellant Harshpreet Saluja who
has been convicted under Sections 302, 120 and 201 (Part I) of the IPC
and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- under each
of above sections. He has also been convicted for offences under
Sections 25(1-B)(A) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for
three years with fine of Rs.1000/- each with default stipulations vide
impugned judgment dated 11.08.2016 passed by the 6th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.280 of 2014. His earlier
applications have been dismissed vide orders dated 08.02.2018,
29.08.2018 and 10.12.2021.
The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that he has already undergone a sentence of about 10 years and 8 months.
Therefore, learned counsel for appellant contends that pursuant to the
order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
(Criminal) No.4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh vs. The State of U.P. and
others), the application for bail be considered on that ground.
Learned Government Advocate has opposed the application.
However, the period of custody undergone by the appellant is not
disputed..
On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that so far as the
merits are concerned, the same require to be considered at the stage of
final hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.10.2021
passed in SLP (Criminal) No.4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh vs. The State of
U.P. and others) has come to the view that the period of custody is one of
the grounds to be taken into consideration while considering the
application for bail, however, there are certain exceptions to the same. We
do not find that any of the exceptions is applicable to the appellant. Since
he has already undergone a period of more than 10 years, we deem it just
and necessary to enlarge him on bail on that ground. Consequently, I.A.
No.16577 of 2022 is allowed.
Appellant - Harshpreet Saluja is enlarged on bail subject to deposit
of the fine amount on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
trial Court/concerned Court on 09.05.2023 and thereafter on such other
subsequent dates as may be fixed in that behalf.
In view of the Covid-19, the Jail Authorities are directed to follow
the Covid-19 protocol as per the Government guidelines before releasing
the appellant on bail.
I.A.No.25191 of 2022 for grant of temporary bail is dismissed as
being infructuous.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
C
Digitally signed by
CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2023.01.10
19:59:38 +05'30'
