Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaglal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6679 of 2021
(JAGLAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-09-2023
Shri Rahul Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.S.Baghel - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.19886 of 2021.
This is the first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
on behalf of the accused/appellant - Jaglal who has been convicted under
Sections 306 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
Life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-
respectively, with default stipulations vide impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional
Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni District
Seoni in Sessions Trial No.41 of 2017
A s per the prosecution case, on 25.01.2017 the complainant lodged a
missing report in the police station Ari with respect to missing of the deceased
Narsingh. However, the police authorities registered a missing report and
during the course of search on 26.01.2017 Shivsingh informed that the dead
body of his brother Narsingh is flowing in well of Shiv Prasad. However, the
dead body was recovered and sent for the postmortem. On the basis of these
circumstances, the police registered an FIR for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code against the unknown persons and
arrested the present appellant.
It is submitted that as per the prosecution, the deceased Narsingh tried to
assault and outrage the modesty of the wife of the appellant but this fact is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/22/2023
5:39:31 PM
incorrect as the wife has been examined as PW-1 and she has not supported the
prosecution story to the aforesaid incident. The eye-witness PW-2 Ku. Archana
is the daughter of the appellant and she has also not supported the case of the
prosecution. PW-3 has turned hostile. PW-4 and PW-5 are not the eye-
witnesses to the incident. The appellant is in custody since the date of
judgment. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be
imposed by this Court while considering the application for grant of bail.
State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted
that there is active participation of the present appellant in commission of the
offence but he could not dispute the fact that the appellant has remained in
custody for almost three years, coupled with the fact that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3
and PW-4 have not supported the prosecution story. However, he has prayed
for dismissal of the application.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the
period of custody of the present appellant and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 05.10.2021 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.4633
of 2021 (Saudan Singh vs. The State of U.P. and others), this Court deems it
appropriate to allow the application.
Accused/appellant - Jaglal is directed to be enlarged on bail subject to
deposit of the fine amount and on he furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial
Court/concerned Court on 19.12.2023 and thereafter on such other subsequent
dates as may be fixed in that behalf.
Accordingly, I.A. No.19886 of 2021 is allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/22/2023
5:39:31 PM
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/22/2023
5:39:31 PM
