Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajveer vs State Of M.P. on 6 October, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 845 of 2012
(RAJVEER Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 06-10-2023
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.15776 of 2023, fifth application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant Rajveer. Four application (I.A.No.6854/2022) was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dt.15.02.2023.
Appellant Rajveer stands convicted under Section 148 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.200/-, under Section 302
in alternate under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3000/- and under Section 25 (1-b)(a) and
27 (1) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo two years' RI and five years' RI
with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2012 passed by
Third Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior (M.P.) in
Sessions Trial No.367/2011.
As per Public Prosecutor, present appellant so far has undergone jail
sentence of 12 years and 2 months without remission and 17 years and two
months with remission.
The prosecution story as found proved is that on 19.03.2011 at about
00.45 complainant - Sardar Singh lodged a report at Police Station Madhoganj
to the effect that 3-4 days before there was altercation between his son and
Rajveer and thereafter a compromise took place between them. On account of
enmity with regard to said incident, on 18.03.2011 at 11.40 PM when the
complainant alongwith his son Mukesh was coming out of the house of
Nathusingh after attending thirteenth day ceremony, at that time accused Rajveer
having katta, Sonu, Dharmendra, Santosh and Neetesh having lathi in their
hand and accused Ravi Nepali having farsa were standing near the house of
Nathusingh and all with common intention started assaulting Mukesh. When his
son Mukesh tried to run, accused Rajveer fired from katta at Mukesh with
intention to kill him, which hit on his stomach and thigh and at the same time all
the accused assaulted him by lathi and killed him. On the basis of the aforesaid,
an offence was registered by Police Station Madhoganj at Crime No.87/2011
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC. Investigation was set in motion.
Upon completion of investigation, challan was filed. The Sessions Court on
appreciation of evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the present
appellant.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment inter alia supported the instant application primarily on the ground of
long incarceration as so far, present appellant has undergone incarceration of 12
years and 2 months without remission and 17 years and 2 months with
remission. That apart, it is submitted that Sessions Court has not appreciated
the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The judgment suffers
from surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that the appeal being of
2012 is not likely to be decided in the near future. On these grounds, learned
counsel submits that the present appellant may be extended the benefit of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching the merits of
the case, but regard being had to the fact that present appellant so far has
undergone incarceration of 12 years and 2 months without remission and 17
years and 02 months with remission, and the appeal which is of the year 2012 is
not likely to be decided in the near future, we are of the view that present
appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.15776 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant Rajveer shall remain suspended during
pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to
verification of the factum of depositing the 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 subject to
verification of factum regarding deposit of fine amount.
It is further directed that if the appellant indulges in any other offence
whatsoever, the prosecution shall be at liberty to approach this court for
cancellation of his suspension of sentence.
Appellant-Rajveer is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court
first on 11.12.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this
behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
KUMAR
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=b127bc1c16d2794cb53e7637ddf59a
1c3bd3662e8c5de5d5505a6b3e4d77be89,
pseudonym=C448D0997960E91F4C949E6C59
DC3A533B536913,
PHANSE
serialNumber=32F47BD4EEEC6355252187AF
AF374C08A4A7DE0DF055620A697876BB203
74E54, cn=SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE
Date: 2023.10.06 18:06:40 +05'30'
