Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anrat @ Annar Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 9337 of 2023
(ANRAT @ ANNAR DHAKAD AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 26-07-2023
Shri O.P. Mathur - learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Sushant Tiwari - learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No. 13424/2023, first application under Section
389(1) Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of the appellants seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant No.1 stand convicted under Sections 3(2)(5-d) of the SC/ST
Act, Section 323/34 (two counts) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(;d)(bZZ) of the
SC/ST Act and appellant No.2 under Sections 3(2)(5-d) of the SC/ST Act,
Section 323/34 (two counts) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(;d)(bZZ) and 3(1)(/k)of
the SC/ST and sentenced to undergo fine of Rs. 500/- - 500/-, one year RI
with fine of Rs. 500/- and six months RI with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively
with default stipulation vid e judgment of conviction and sentence dated
12/07/2023 passed by Special Judge,SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act),
Shivpuri (M.P.) in Special Case ATR No. 231/2017.
Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the impugned judgment
passed by learned trial Court is based on assumption, conjecture and surmises.
The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing
the present appellants without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly.
There are material contractions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses.
The appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty so
granted to them. Fine amount has already been deposited by the appellants. The
jail sentences of appellants were suspended by learned trial Court, under
Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in
n e a r future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellants may be suspended and they may be
enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection. He contends that appellants are
convicted on proper appreciation of evidence. No case is made out for
suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellants shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal and they shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and
also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19.09.2023 and on further
dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.
Accordingly, I.A. No.13424/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
Call for the record of the Court below and list thereafter for final hearing
in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
PRACHI MISHRA
2023.07.27
10:19:38 +05'30'
