Madhya Pradesh High Court
Teja @ Tejsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1026 of 2016
(TEJA @ TEJSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-05-2023
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.4243/2023, which is second application under Section
389 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on
behalf of the appellant Teja @ Tejsingh.
Appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 04/07/2016 passed in
Sessions Trial No.337/2013 by I Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District
Rajgarh (M.P.) under Sections 341/34, 302/34 and 307/34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo 01 month RI with fine of
Rs.500/-, Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and 10 years RI with fine of
Rs.2,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation. First application was
dismissed as withdrawn in the year 09/02/2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent
person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. His contention is that
appellant has completed more than nine years jail incarceration and appeal is not
likely to be heard finally in near future and it would take sufficient long time,
therefore, in the light of judgment of the apex Court in the case of Sudan Singh
V/s. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021 decided on 05/10/2021, the jail
sentence of appellant is liable to be suspended. Apart from that Shri Meena
submits that as per the statement of PW-3 appellant said to have caused injury
to him and not to the deceased. No firearm was recovered from his possession.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 5/3/2023
12:37:41 PM
There was a previous enmity between Antarsingh and deceased because
Anatarsingh got married with the daughter of deceased. This appellant has no
relation with the Antarsingh, who is already in jail. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses and there is a
strong case in favour of the appellant. Hence, the execution of the remaining
part of the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the final disposal of
this appeal.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting
that the trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence has convicted the
appellant, hence, his application for suspension of sentence is liable to be
rejected.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
allegation levelled against the appellant and also taking note of the fact that
appellant has already suffered jail incarceration of more than nine years and final
conclusion of the appeal will take sufficient long time. In view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to suspend the remaining
custodial sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.4243/2023 is allowed and it is directed subject to
deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and subject to furnishing
personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court, the execution of remaining custodial part of the sentence
of the appellant shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence before
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 5/3/2023
12:37:41 PM
the Registry of this Court on 23/11/2023 and on all such subsequent dates,
which are fixed in this behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 5/3/2023
12:37:41 PM
