Garibe @ Naresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 626 MP

                                   1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                            CRA No. 660 of 2014
            (GARIBE @ NARESH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 10-01-2023
      Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for appellant.

      Smt. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for objector/complainant. Heard on I.A. No.18111/2022 , which is seventh repeat application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No. 3 - Deepu @ Ajay seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. On 22.07.2022 similar

application on his behalf has been rejected on merits.

Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer additional imprisonment for two months, vide judgment dated 20.05.2014 passed by Special Judge [under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989] (for short "the Act"), Bhind in Special Case No.122/2010.

Appellant has so far undergone almost 10 years and 9 months jail incarceration including the period undergone during trial.

Shri Goswami at the outset referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 14.11.2022 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.9987/2022. Hon'ble Supreme Court entertained SLP against the order dated 25.03.2022 in same appeal rejecting the application for suspension of sentence filed by the co-accused Rinku @ Ranveer appellant No. 2, who is alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased by Dhariya. Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the benefit of suspension of sentence primarily on the ground that Rinku @ Ranveer has

already undergone almost 11 years of jail sentence.

Shri Goswami submits that the allegations against all the accused persons namely Rinku @ Ranveer, present appellant Deepu @ Ajay, Garibe @ Naresh and one unknown person later on identified as Narendra are similar. Garibe and Narendra have already been extended the benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court.

Shri Goswami further submits that case of the present appellant No. 3 Deepu @ Ajay is stronger then that of appellant No. 2 Rinku @ Ranveer as the present appellant is alleged to have armed with Hockey and sticks, whereas Rinku was alleged to have armed with Dhariya and Lathi. The appellant so far

has undergone 10 years and 9 months jail incarceration, hence, prays for parity in the matter of suspension of sentence.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State and objector opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence drawing the attention of this Court that it is a case of double murder and all the accused persons have inflicted innumerable injuries on almost every part of the body of the deceased, resulting into their death due to excessive bleeding, therefore, no exception may be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence.

Though on merits, the contention advanced by the counsel for the respondent and objector, have substantial force, however, regard being had to the fact that the appellant has already suffered more than 10 years and 9 months incarceration and Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted suspension of sentence to the similarly placed accused Rinku @ Ranveer, we see no reason to take a different view in the obtaining facts and circumstances, particularly for the reason attributable to long jail incarceration. Consequently, I.A. is allowed. The appellant Deepu @ Ajay is held entitled for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant Deepu @ Ajay shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 15.03.2022 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-

(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing the appellant, the medical examination of the appellant be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action or any further test required be undertaken immediately. If not, appellant shall be released on bail in terms of the conditions imposed in this order;

(ii) violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No.18111/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.

Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

   (ROHIT ARYA)                                   (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
      JUDGE                                                JUDGE

Abhi
Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI
Date: 2023.01.10 14:56:49
+05'30'