Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramratan Ray vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 11754 of 2023
(RAMRATAN RAY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-10-2023
Shri Rajeev Sharma - Advocate for appellants.
Shri A.K.Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.16955 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of all the
appellants i.e. appellants No.1 - Ramratan, No.2 - Abhishek and No.3 - Deepak.
Appellants No.1 Ramratan and No.2 Abhishek stand convicted under
Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of
Rs.1000/- with default stipulations and appellant No.3 Deepak stands convicted
under Sections 324 and 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three-three
years with fine of Rs.2000-2000 with default stipulations vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 28th August 2023 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Kurwai, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.19/2018.
The prosecution story as found proved is that on 25.06.2018 at about
5.30 PM, complainant Rakesh Rai alongwith Sanju Rai had gone to their
agricultural field situated at Bhuguwali, where Ramratan was laying moorum.
Complainant told him to maintain the road level while laying moorum, on which
Ramratan retorted that complainant was making complaints against him and
called his son Deepak and Abhishek by telephoning them. All three of them
abused the complainant filthily. Thereafter, Deepak gave a knife blow which hit
near his eyebrows and blood started oozing out. Ramratan Rai inflicted axe
blow from blunt side of axe on his chest, while Abhishek dealt iron rod on his
chest and back. Sanju intervened while all the three miscreants told him that if he
interfered he would be killed. On the basis of the aforesaid, offence was
registered and criminal law set into motion. Upon completion of investigation,
challan was filed. The court below on appreciation of evidence placed on
record convicted and sentenced the present appellants.
Learned counsel for appellants while taking exception to the impugned
judgment inter alia submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated. The
custodial sentence of the appellants was suspended by the trial court for a
period of one month. The appellants were on bail during trial and have not
misused the liberty to granted. The appellants are permanent residents of
Vidisha and there is no likelihood of their absconsion. The appeal is of the year
2023 and looking to the short sentence of one and three years, the appellants
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, opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the
application.
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 this appeal is of the year 2023 and
there is no likelihood of its final disposal in near future, we are of the view that
appellants are entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.16955 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellants No.1 - Ramratan, No.2 - Abhishek and No.3 -
Deepak shall remain suspended during pendency of the present appeal and they
shall be released on bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the
fine amount and on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one solvent surety each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to verification of factum
regarding deposit of fine amount.
Appellants is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
07.12.2023 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) (AVANINDRA 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=C448D0997960E91F4C949E6C5
9DC3A533B536913,
PHANSE
serialNumber=32F47BD4EEEC6355252187AF
AF374C08A4A7DE0DF055620A697876BB203
74E54, cn=SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE
Date: 2023.10.06 18:21:36 +05'30'
