Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6900 of 2018
(RAGHVENDRA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 10-10-2023
Shri Yogesh Singh Baghel -Advocate for appellant.
Shri Amit Pandey -Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Since objection despite granting time on 25.09.2023 has not been filed by
the State. On the last date it was clearly mentioned if objection is not filed, the
bail application shall be considered on the basis of objection filed earlier,
therefore, no further time is granted because fresh objection is not filed by the
State and on the basis of of objection filed earlier, this bail application has been
considered.
Appellant has moved I.A. No.22317 of 2023, which is the fourth
application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Vid e impugned judgment dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Sessions
Judge, Umariya District Umariya in S.T. No.61/2014, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 467 of Indian Penal Code
and sentenced thereunder to suffer R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- in
default further R.I for 100 days and 420 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced
thereunder to suffer R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default further R.I
for 100 days.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is in jail since last
more than 5 years and completed almost half of the sentence. The appeal is of
2018 and it will take time to be heard finally and therefore, looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, when there is every possibility of setting aside
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/10/2023
3:03:47 PM
the judgment passed by the trial court because there is nothing against the
present appellant. Under the circumstance, the sentence awarded to present
appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed
the bail application and submits that finding given by the trial court is based
upon proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and there
is no possibility of disturbing the judgment of conviction and awarded sentence
to the appellant, merely because appellant has completed more than 5 years of
sentence, his bail application cannot be considered and same deserves to be
dismissed. He further submits that earlier bail applications were rejected on
merit.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perusal of record and the fact that the appellant has completed more than 5
years in incarceration, therefore, I am inclined to consider and allow the
application. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.22317 of 2023 is allowed.
It is directed that on depositing the entire fine amount (if not deposited)
by appellant as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
concerned for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19.12.2023
and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be
released on bail, if not required to be detained in any other case.
Accordingly, I.A. No.22317 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/10/2023
3:03:47 PM
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
tarun
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 10/10/2023
3:03:47 PM
