Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamarlal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA NO. 530 of 2014
(KAMARLAL YADAV AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-05-2023
Per Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.6758/2023, which is 8th application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No. 6 -
Dharmendra Yadav seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant's first, second and third applications filed under Section
389(1) of CrPC were dismissed as withdrawn by order dated
14.08.2015, 12.05.2017 and 01.02.2019 respectively, while fourth
application for interim suspension was allowed vide order dated
03.05.2019 and fifth application was dismissed for want of prosecution
vide order dated 09.01.2020 and sixth application was disposed of vide
order dated 16.07.2021 with a direction to the competent authority to
consider the case of appellant No. 6 for grant of parole and seventh
application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 01.04.2022.
Appellant No. 6 stood convicted under Section 147 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.500/-, under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation vide
judgment dated 28.03.2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Shivpuri in S.T. No.209/2013.
Learned counsel for the appellant No. 6 submits that it has been
alleged against the appellant that he along with co-accused persons
namely Dashrath, Kamarlal, Mulayam Singh, Siddhar Singh and Veeran
@ Veerendra Yadav armed with sword, farsa and lathi went to the
complainant Sughar Singh's house and started hurling filthy language to
him and when his mother Muniya Bai came there to rescue him,
appellant assaulted on her forehead with farsa, due to which, she fell
down and died. He submits that there is nothing on record which
suggests involvement of the appellant in the crime. Complainant Sughar
Singh (PW-2) himself in his statement recorded during trial has not
supported the prosecution case, therefore, learned Trial Court has
committed error in holding the appellant guilty. He further submits that
as the incident took place all of a sudden and there was no
premeditation on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the
complainant's mother Muniya Bai, therefore, at the most the appellant
can only be convicted under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
appellant is in custody and has suffered till now about 10 years and 1
month actual incarceration and 14 years, 4 months and 20 days
incarceration including remission and there is no likelihood of hearing
of this appeal in near future, therefore, his remaining period of sentence
may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State
opposed the application while supporting the impugned judgment and
submits that the appellant is the main accused in the matter and his case
is different from the other co-accused persons. He along with other co-
accused persons, in furtherance of their common object to commit
murder of the complainant, went to the spot and committed murder. The
allegations against him are serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled
for bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on
record specially the statement of the complainant Sughar Singh (PW-2)
and the fact that the incident took place all of a sudden and so also the
fact that appellant has suffered till now 14 years, 4 months and 20 days
incarceration including remission and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal in near future and without expressing any opinion
on merits, in considered view of this Court, the appellant deserves to be
extended the benefit of bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.6758/2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant No.6 shall remain suspended during
pendency of present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to
deposit of fine amount and 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 No.6 is
directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 05/07/2023
and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
behalf with following further conditions:-
(i) Appellant No.6 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.6758/2023 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
Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI
Date: 2023.05.10
14:01:15 +05'30'
