Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit @ Mohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8340 of 2019
(ANKIT @ MOHIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 23-11-2023
Shri Vivek Agrawal alongwith Shri Deepak Mishra- Advocates for the
appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.16142 of 2023, which is the first application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant - Ankit @ Mohit.
The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 302/149,
324/149 and 147 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life, RI for one year
and RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.10,000/-, 2000/- and 1000/- respectively,
with default stipulations, vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated
28.08.2019 passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Balaghat, District - Balaghat in SC
No.102/2014.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no previous application
was dismissed on merit. The appellant has remained in actual custody for more
than four years. The appellant has no criminal record. Certain other co-accused
persons were tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children)
Act because they were below the age of 18 years. The appellant was aged about
18 years and few months at the time of incident. The incident had taken place
suddenly. There was no pre-meditation / motive. The prosecution could not
establish with certainty that this appellant had any intention to cause death of
Praveen Uikey. PW-3 is an injured eye witness who recorded the dehatinalsi by
name. However, his cross-examination shows that he categorically admitted that
at the time or before the incident, he was not aware about the name of the
present appellant and other co-accused persons. Thus, the name of appellant is
erroneously recorded in the dehatinalsi and it creates serious doubt about the
prosecution story. No weapon is recovered from the appellant. The final
hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail
sentence of the appellant may be suspended.
P er contra, learned Government Advocate for the State opposes the
prayer for suspension of remaining jail sentence of the appellant on the basis of
the previous objection which was permitted to be adopted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.16142/2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that
appellant - Ankit @ Mohit be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a
further direction to appear before the concerning trial Court - Balaghat on
08/01/2024 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vibha
