Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saiyad Ajij Ali @ Guddu Banjara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 8037 of 2019
(SAIYAD AJIJ ALI @ GUDDU BANJARA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 12-10-2023
Per Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh
Shri Sushil Goswami- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Girdhari Singh Chauhan- Learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Heard o n I.A. No.17635 of 2023, second application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
Appellant's first application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.04.2023.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.08.2019 passed by the
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial
No.182/2011.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant's earlier
application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. was not decided on merit. He
further submits that it has been alleged against the appellant that deceased
Sanjeev Jain got arrested appellant's daughter with the help of media persons
and police in suspicious condition. Deceased Sanjeev Jain was having enmity
with the appellant's childhood friend co-accused Narendra Raghuvanshi due to
which appellant along with co-accused Narendra Raghuvanshi and other co-
accused persons hatched a conspiracy in pursuance of which on 28.12.2010 at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12-Oct-23
6:15:24 PM
about 00:15 hours when deceased Sanjeev Jain was sitting with his friend,
complainant Tarachand Ahirwar at Parath Dharmkanta, appellant along with
other co-accused persons came there on motorcycle and assaulted him with
firearm and caused gunshot injury to him due to which he had died. He further
submits that admittedly FIR was lodged just after the incident against unknown
persons and complainant did not see the assailants.
During investigation deceased Sanjeev Jain's sister-in-law Rajni Jain (PW-
2) stated in her statement recorded during investigation that she had seen the
assailants. She named them as appellant and co-accused Onkar Singh Kushwah.
Learned Trial Court has not relied upon the statement of Rajni (PW-2) and
acquitted the co-accused Onkar Singh Kushwah from the charges. There is no
direct evidence in the matter against the appellant. The bullet found in the body
of the deceased was said to be fired from co-accused Narendra Raghuvanshi's
licensee revolver which has falsely been shown to be seized from the
possession of the appellant. There is nothing else on record against the
appellant. He was enlarged on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. He has suffered till now 08 years, 07 months and 23 days
incarceration out of jail sentence awarded to him. There is no likelihood of
hearing of this appeal in near future. Under such circumstances, learned counsel
prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
application with submission that deceased being press reporter got arrested
appellant's daughter in suspicious condition due to which appellant was having
enmity with the deceased. He was identified by the deceased's sister-in-law
Rajni Jain (PW-2) as one of the assailants. The weapon revolver as well as
motorcycle used in the crime have been seized from the possession of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12-Oct-23
6:15:24 PM
appellant. He was very well present on the spot at the time of incident. Learned
Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant, hence, no
indulgence can be given in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.
Having considered the rival submission, material pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellant specifically with regard to the fact that FIR was lodged
against unknown person and statement of eyewitness Rajni Jain (PW-2) has not
been relied upon by the Trial Court, considering the period of custody of the
appellant as well as the fact that there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in
near future, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A.
No.17635 of 2023 is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence
of the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Tow 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. Appellant is directed to appear before the
Registry of this Court first on 13-12-2023 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, I.A. No.17635 of 2023 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
(alok)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 12-Oct-23
6:15:24 PM
