Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pulandar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
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 : 27-06-2023
Shri Rameshwar Rawat - Advocate for the appellant No. 3.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8574/2023, which is second application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on
behalf of appellant No.3-Dilip Singh. Appellant No.3's first application filed
under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated
04.01.2023.
Appellant No.3 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.3 submits that as per prosecution
case itself, at the time of incident appellant No.3 and other co-accused persons
were armed with Lathi while deceased Harpal alias Pinku was having rifle. He
referring appellant No.1 - Pulandar Singh'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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 27-06-2023
06:30:56
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.3's conviction under Sections
302/34 and 307/34 of IPC is not sustainable. Appellant No.3 is in custody since
13/4/2016 and has suffered more than seven years and two months'
incarceration. Learned counsel further submits that appellant No. 3's case is
having parity with co-accused Pulandar, who has already been enlarged on bail
by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2023. 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.3 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.3 and the co-accused
persons were aggressor. Offences alleged against him are serious in nature,
therefore, appellant No.3 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.3 is in custody since 13/4/2016 and has
suffered till now more that seven years and two months' incarceration. Under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 27-06-2023
06:30:56
these circumstances, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant No.3 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,
this Court is of the view that the appellant No.3 deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.8574/2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant No.3-Dilip 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.3 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 time 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.3, 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 27-06-2023
06:30:56
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.8574/2023 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
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 27-06-2023
06:30:56
