Deep Singh Alias Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9471 MP

                                    1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                            CRA No. 11119 of 2019
               (DEEP SINGH ALIAS KALLU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 23-06-2023
      Per Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh-

      Shri D.S. Tomar with Shri J.S. Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellant.
      Shri Rohit Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Anshu Gupta - Advocate for complainant.

Heard on I.A. No.1574/2023, 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 - Deep Singh alias Kallu. His first and second application for grant of temporary suspension filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. were allowed by order dated 2/9/2022 and 18/11/2022.

Appellant stands convicted under Section 364 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for 15 days, under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for 25 days, under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for ten days

and under Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer additional R.I. for 7 days with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28/11/2019 passed by Special Judge, MPDVPK Act, Sheopur (MP) in SC DOCT / 300007/2016.

Prosecution story, as found proved, is that the complainant Smt. Lilavati submitted a complaint on 10.3.2016 to the SHO Police Station

Karahal to the effect that on 09.03.2016 her son Ashok Singh, aged 40 years, went to attend a marriage ceremony. Mahaveer Partvada informed her that there was a dispute between her son Ashok Singh and Deep Singh @ Kallu Rajawat, Raghvendra Singh Mangu and other 3-4 persons outside the marriage place. On the basis of such complaint, inquiry was conducted and the spot inspection was done on which a Bajaj C.T.100 Motorcycle and two pocket diaries were found, which were seized. During the statements it was revealed that on account of the theft of cable wire, a dispute was going on between the accused persons and Ashok Solanki and on account of the same dispute at the time of incident, accused persons took Ashok Singh Solanki in their Scorpio Jeep and went to a

secret place with intention to kill Ashok Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid, an FIR has been registered at Crime No.20/2016.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Merely on the basis of hypothetical thought, the present appellant has been convicted. Chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. There are discrepancies in the statements of the last seen evidence. Counsel for the appellant further submits that by order dated 22/10/2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.818/2020, the remaining jail sentence of co-convict Aditya Singh has already been suspended and the case of the present appellant is akin to that of co-convict Aditya Singh. Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, his remaining period of sentence be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for complainant/objector have opposed the prayer and submit that appellant's case

is entirely different from co-accused Aditya Singh, as on the instance of the appellant, weapon Lathi used in the crime and deceased's shoes were seized. DNA test report reveals that deceased's blood was found on the Lathi seized on the instance of the appellant from his possession. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against this appellant. Offence alleged against him are serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

In reply to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent / State and complainant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Lathi and shoes said to be seized on the instance of the appellant from his possession were seized after recovery of the body of deceased from an open place situated near the place of incident. Seizure of deceased's shoes on the instance of the appellant from his possession is unnatural, hence, it cannot be said that appellant's case is different from co-accused Aditya Singh.

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

Up o n perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the acts attributed on the appellant are similar to that of co- accused Aditya Singh. Under these circumstances, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the additional evidence produced on record against the appellant, so also the period of

custody, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, in view of this Court, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1574/2023 stands allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant Deep Singh alias Kallu 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 22/8/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-

(i) Appellant 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, his medical examination be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he 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.1574/2023 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
        2023.06.23 17:52:08 +05'30'