Pulandar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8870 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                             CRA No. 430 of 2016
             (PULANDAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 15-06-2023
      Per Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh-

      Shri P.S. Bhadoriya - Advocate for the appellants.
      Shri    Lokendra      Shrivastava     -   Public     Prosecutor     for   the
respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.6444/2020, which is third application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on

behalf of appellant No.1-Pulandar Singh. Appellant No.1's first and second application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. were dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 14/12/2016 and 9/8/2017.

Appellant No.1 stands convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, respectively with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/4/2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in S.T. No.79/2013.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Pulandar Singh submits that as per prosecution case itself at the time of incident appellant No.1 and other co- accused persons were armed with Lathi while deceased Harpal alias Pinku was having rifle. He referring appellant No.1's MLC report Ex.D/3, x-ray report Ex.D/4 and counter FIR Ex.D/5 lodged by the appellant No.1 against deceased Harpal alias Pinku and his brother Indrapal and other submits that at the time of incident appellant No.1 himself was assaulted by the deceased and his brother,

wherein appellant No.1 sustained bullet injuries as shown in the MLC report. Prosecution has not given any plausible explanation about the injuries found on the body of the appellant No.1. All the injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by hard and blunt object and it has not been specifically mentioned that who caused the fatal injury to the deceased. Incident had taken place all of a sudden, therefore, appellant No.1's conviction under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of IPC is not sustainable. Appellant No.1 is in custody since 13/4/2016 and has suffered more than seven years and one months incarceration. there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future, therefore, his remaining period of sentence be suspended and he be enlarged on

bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that appellant no.1 alongwith other co-accused persons was having suspicion on the complainant and his son deceased Harpal and Indrapal that they were informer of the police, due to which, they in a pre-planned manner went to the deceased's field and assaulted the deceased Harpal by deadly weapon Lathi on his head and other vital part of the body and caused fatal injury due to which he died and thus, appellant No.1 was and the co-accused persons were aggressor. Offences alleged against him are serious in nature, therefore, appellant no.1 is not entitled for bail.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record.

Upon perusal of the record, this fact is undisputed that counter FIR was lodged by the appellant No.1 and during medical examination in all 12 injuries were found on his body. Appellant No.1 is in custody since 13/4/2016 and has suffered till now more that seven years and one months incarceration. Under

these circumstances, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant no.1 and also the fact that there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, in view of this Court, the appellant no.1 deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No.6444/2020 stands allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.1-Pulandar Singh shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal and he shall 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 first on 21/8/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-

(i) Appellant No.1 will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-

19);

(ii) The concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing Appellant No.1, his medical examination be conducted

through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that she is having any symptom of COVID-19 then the consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any further test required be undertaken immediately;

(iii) On violation of the conditions, State is free to apply for

cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, IA. No.6444/2020 stands allowed and disposed of.

Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of disposal of the instant application for suspension of sentence and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

  (ROHIT ARYA)                                    (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
     JUDGE                                                 JUDGE

Arun*
                ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
                2023.06.19 13:56:59 +05'30'