Devendra @ Banti Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3819 MP

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                           CRA No. 10261 of 2022
             (DEVENDRA @ BANTI GURJAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 03-03-2023
      Shri Som Pratap Singh Tomar with Karan Virwani - Advocate for the

appellant.
      Shri Rajeev Upadhyay - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A.No.3515/2023, which is second application filed

under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant Devendra @ Bunty for suspension of sentence. First application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8.12.2022.

The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, under Section 467 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, under Section 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/- and under Section 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

five years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2022 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.121/2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant Devendra @ Bunty is in custody since 31.10.2022 and has suffered about five months' incarceration out of five years. The counsel for the appellant further submits

that admittedly the appellant was not found on the spot and the document royalty pass (Ex.P/11) was seized from the possession of the driver of the vehicle co-accused Puran. By referring to the statement of co-accused Puran (Ex.P/18) recorded by the Raiding Authority, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he admitted that some manipulation in the aforesaid royalty pass was made by him. Appellant has been implicated only because he was the owner of the said vehicle. There is nothing against him on record. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future, hence he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of the bail to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that being owner of the vehicle, appellant was the only beneficiary. He was very well involved in the crime, therefore, the appellant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Having considered the rival submissions, material available on record and also considering the fact that admittedly the appellant was not present on the spot and royalty pass (Ex.P/11) said to be forged and fabricated was seized from the possession of the driver of the vehicle co-accused and there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.

I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) along with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for their appearance

before the Registry of this Court firstly on 09.05.2023, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2023.03.03 15:04:41 +05'30'