Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirpat Dhobi 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. 9185 of 2023
(NIRPAT DHOBI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-07-2023
Shri Anand Singh Sikarwar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sushant Tiwari- Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.13200/2023, which is application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellant No.1-Nirpat Dhobi and
appellant No.2- Rameshwar Dhobi.
Appellant No.1-Nirpat Dhobi, aged about 72 years in 2015 and appellant
No.2-Rameshwar Dhobi, aged about 62 years in 2015 stand convicted under
Sections 307/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of
Rs.1000/-, Section 324/149 of IPC and sentence to undergo RI for 2 years with
fine of Rs.500/- and Section 148 of IPC and sentence to undergo RI for one
year with default stipulations vide impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 08.07.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court
No.4 (under Electricity Act), Gwalior in Session Trial No.16000074/2016.
Learned counsel for the appellants, in addition to the ground mentioned
in the application, submits that no specific overt act is attributed to the appellant
No.1-Nirpat Dhobi and appellant No.2- Rameshwar Dhobi. Injured complainant
Bhagirath and other witness Sunny have made omnibus statements regarding
involvement of present appellants in the alleged act of causing injuries to
Bhagirath, Sunny and Hakim Singh. Appellants are falsely implicated in the
matter. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 27-07-2023
10:30:04 AM
sentencing the present appellants without appreciating the prosecution evidence
properly. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
witnesses. The appellants were on anticipatory bail during trial and they did not
misuse the liberty so granted to them. Fine amount has already been deposited
by the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that
presently, appellant No.1-Nirpat is aged around 80 years and appellant No.2-
Rameshwar is aged around 68 years. Both of them are in fragile state of health.
There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near 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 the respondent/State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for 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 appellant No.1-Nirpat and appellant No.2-Rameshwar
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.13200/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 27-07-2023
10:30:04 AM
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Monika
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 27-07-2023
10:30:04 AM
