Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit Kapoor @ Shammi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 858 of 2020
(SUMIT KAPOOR @ SHAMMI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-05-2023
Shri Arun Kumar Nema - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri L.A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.1057/2023 which is the repeat (Second) application
filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The earlier application of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn on
17.05.2021 with liberty to renew the same after some time.
Vide the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2019 passed by the 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal (M.P.) in S.T. No.978/2014, the appellant
has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for life with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for
seven years with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant has
been convicted under Section 302 of IPC but he has been falsely implicated in
the alleged crime. He submits that there is no material indicating that the present
appellant was involved in the crime and accompanied the other accused
persons. He submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as on the basis
of last seen together, the present appellant has been implicated in the crime. He
submits that the witness who had acknowledged the presence of the appellant
lastly with the deceased is also not reliable witness and as per his statement it
can be easily gathered that the said witness was not trustworthy. He submits
that except the presence of present appellant with the deceased lastly, nothing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 5/4/2023
10:32:39 AM
has been collected by the prosecution and produced before the Court,
therefore, considering the period of incarceration which is almost 8 years and
10 months and the fact that the finding given by the Court below without any
sufficient evidence, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
O n the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State opposes the
submission made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that sufficient
material was available before the Court and on the basis same, the present
appellant has been convicted. He submits that the finding given by the Court
below was reasoned one and it cannot be said to be perverse. He submits that
seizure was made from the present appellant of a Nylon Rope which was used
in the alleged crime, cold drink and also of a cheque signed by the wife of the
deceased and there was no sufficient explanation given by the appellant,
therefore, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail deserves
to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, perusal
of record and the period of incarceration, we are of the opinion that the
appellant can be enlarged on bail. Therefore, without commenting anything on
the merits of the case, I.A. No.1057/2023 is allowed.
I t is directed that the sentence dated 24.12.2019 passed in S.T.
No.978/2014 is suspended in respect of the present appellant and he shall be
released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction
of trial Court concerned for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
31.07.2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
regard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 5/4/2023
10:32:39 AM
Accordingly, I.A. No.1057/2023 is allowed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
ac/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 5/4/2023
10:32:39 AM
