Sanjay Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10883 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 5118 of 2020 (SANJAY VISHWAKARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 14-07-2023 Shri Rohit Sharma - Advocate for appellant.

Shri A. R. Ben - Deputy Government Advocate for the State.

Heard on I.A No.16014/2023, which is third application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, moved on behalf of the appellant-Sanjay Vishwakarma.

T h e appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offence. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. He further submits that he is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and

conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and prays for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and the record of the court below.

This is the repeat application for suspension of sentence while two earlier applications i.e. first application was dismissed as withdrawn by a co-ordinate Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 7/18/2023 11:34:40 AM

Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.1.2021 and the second application was dismissed on merits by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.2.2022. The order passed on 14.02.2022 regarding dismissal of second bail application has taken into account the merits of the case. The earlier application was dismissed for the reason that the present appellant-Sanjay was duly identified during investigation and even in the Court testimony. Though no recovery was made from the possession of appellant, but there is direct evidence against him regarding commission of crime. No reason has been assigned in the application under consideration why this repeat application should be reconsidered on merits. Merely for the reason that appellant has

undergone almost the half sentence the remaining part of the jail sentence cannot b e suspended. This argument can also not be accepted that appellant was arrayed as accused only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused in an offence of robbery and dacoity.

Considering all these circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and, hence, this repeat application is dismissed.

List the case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

Nitesh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 7/18/2023 11:34:40 AM