Chikaan @ Chikan And 2 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16479 MP

                                                                 1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                          CRA No. 184 of 2014
                                    (CHIKAAN @ CHIKAN AND 2 ORS. AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 06-10-2023
                                    Shri Sunil Gupta - Advocate for the appellant No.2.

                                    Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Government Advocate for respondent/ State.

Heard on I.A.No.10624 of 2023, first application filed u/s. 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.2 - Suraj @ Taini.

The appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 18.12.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 1166/2012 u/s. 120-B, 396, 412 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and 10 years' RI respectively with default stipulation.

A s per prosecution story, certain persons entered the house of complainant Saranjeet Chhabra and assaulted her husband Jasbir Singh. Thereafter, valuable ornaments and articles were taken away by those persons. Later on in a Test Identification Parade, the stolen materials were identified by complainant Saranjeet Chhabra.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the FIR and entire challan papers, even name of this appellant was not taken by anybody. At a later point of time, on the basis of a memorandum prepared under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, the appellant is arraigned. In the memorandum, there is no iota of allegation that this appellant was part of any conspiracy. There is no other material/evidence produced during trial , which connects the appellant with story of conspiracy and attract Section 120(B) of IPC. Further, the co-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-10-2023 11:06:17

accused Karan has been released on bail by this Court. He, therefore, prays for suspension of jail sentence of appellant and to release him on bail.

On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer and prays for rejection of the application.

I n view of the above facts and circumstances of the case in totality, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the jail sentence of this appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.10624 of 2023 is allowed and it stands closed. It is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount with the trial Court, if not already deposited, and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant No.2

Suraj @ Taini in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11.12.2023 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this behalf, during pendency of this appeal the execution of custodial part of the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till final disposal of this appeal.

IA No.11216/2023 an application for urgent hearing is also disposed off. Certified copy as per rules.

                              (VIVEK RUSIA)                                                 (ANIL VERMA)
                                  JUDGE                                                        JUDGE

                           Anushree




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 07-10-2023
11:06:17