Rajdeep Alias Deep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17065 MP

                                                               1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                         CRA No. 7586 of 2019
                                      (RAJDEEP ALIAS DEEP AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 13-10-2023
                                 Shri Kapil Pathak - Advocate for the appellant No.4.

                                 Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for appellant No.2.
                                 Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava - Advocate for the objector.

Heard on I.A. No.17520/2023, which is the second application filed

under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of appellant No.4 namely Bagla @ Tejwanshi and I.A. No. 22867/2023 which is the third application filed on behalf of appellant No.2 Akash @ Rajat for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Vide impugned judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in S.T. No.500092/2016, the appellant No. 4 namely Bagla @ Tejwanshi has been convicted under Sections 302 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for life with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/-

and RI for two years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations. Similarly, the appellant No.2 namely Akash @ Rajat has been convicted under Sections 302 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for life with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the case of prosecution and evidence adduced during trial, it is clear that though the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:09:02 PM

appellants have been considered to be the members of unlawful assembly but considering their role in the alleged crime, it can be gathered that they did not have any common object to kill the deceased. He submits that the present appellants were armed with iron pipes and assaulted injuries to the deceased on his legs and hands and because of that, he sustained fracture. He further submits that though number of accused were there assaulted the deceased and as such, the deceased sustained 13 injuries on his body but the cause of death was the injuries sustained by him on his head and that was caused by Manoj. He submits that even otherwise, the injuries caused by the present appellants and the manner in which the incident occurred, they cannot be convicted under

Sections 302 or 149 of IPC. He submits that the present appellants have already

suffered 71/2 in incarceration and, therefore, looking to the nature of crime, their bail applications may be considered.

O n the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that as per the case of prosecution, it was a planned murder because from the incident as has been narrated in paragraph-3 of the judgment, it can be easily gathered that the accused persons in a planned manner had attacked the deceased and his brother in which both have sustained injuries. He submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, it can easily be gathered that their intention was clear that they wanted to kill the deceased and therefore, he submits that the bail applications of the present appellants deserve to be dismissed.

Shri S.B. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the objector has also opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellants and supported the stand taken by learned counsel for the State. He has further submitted that bail

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:09:02 PM

applications of the co-accused have already been rejected on merit and, therefore, the bail applications of the present appellants who are similarly situated also deserve the same treatment and are liable to be rejected.

However, in response to the same, counsel for the appellants submits that the bail applications of other co-accused were rejected in the year 2020 and that cannot be made basis for rejection of the applications after lapse of three years.

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, we are of the opinion that since the present appellants

have already suffered almost 71/2 years in incarceration, the applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail can be considered. Therefore, without commencing anything on the merits of the case, I.A. No.17520/2023 and I.A. No. 22867/2023 are allowed.

I t is directed that on depositing the entire fine amount, if already not deposited, appellant No.4 Bagla @ Tejwanshi and appellant No.2 Akash @ Rajat shall be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with a surety bond each of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.12.2023 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.

Accordingly, I.A. Nos.17520/2023 and 22867/2023 stand allowed and

disposed of.

List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

                             (SANJAY DWIVEDI)                                          (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                  JUDGE                                                     JUDGE

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 10/16/2023
5:09:02 PM

                           rao




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 10/16/2023
5:09:02 PM