Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj @ Kallu @ Shailendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 793 of 2020
(NEERAJ @ KALLU @ SHAILENDRA TIWARI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-09-2023
Shri Shreyash Pandit and Ms. Sarita Kocchal - Advocates for the
appellants.
Shri Puneet Shroti - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.7685/2023, which is the repeat (third) application filed
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of appellant
No.2 namely Raja Banshkar for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The
earlier applications of the present appellant were dismissed as withdrawn.
Vide the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. No.300002/2016, appellant No.2 along
with co-appellant has been convicted under Sections 460, 302 r/w 34 and 397
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for life with fine
of Rs.3000/-, RI for life within fine of Rs.3000/- and RI for seven years with
fine of Rs.4000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appellant has
been convicted only on the basis of seizure made from him that too of articles
which were identified by the witness saying to be of deceased. He submits that
the main accused namely Neeraj @ Kallu (appellant No.1 herein) was arrested
by the police and in his memorandum he has taken the name of the present
appellant namely Raja Banshkar. He submits that the present appellant has been
falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He further submits even otherwise
considering the fact that it is case of circumstantial evidence and the present
appellant has already suffered almost eight years in incarceration, bail
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 9/23/2023
10:20:09 AM
application can be considered because this appeal is of the year 2020 and will
take time to be heard finally.
O n the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State opposes the
submission made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that looking to
the fact that seizure of articles belonging to the deceased was made from the
present appellant and those articles have been identified by the witnesses saying
that the same belongs to the deceased merely because the present appellant has
suffered more than eight years in custody, the bail application cannot be
considered.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and
after perusal of record, we are of the opinion that since it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and the present appellant has already suffered almost
eight years in incarceration, the application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail can be considered. Therefore, without commencing anything on the
merits of the case, I.A. No.7685/2023 is allowed.
I t is directed that on depositing the entire fine amount, if already not
deposited, appellant No.2/Raja Banshkar shall be released on bail upon his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) with a surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court
concerned for his appearance before the Registry of this Court first time on
04.12.2023 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by the
Registry in this regard.
Accordingly, I.A. No.7685/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 9/23/2023
10:20:09 AM
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
ac/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 9/23/2023
10:20:09 AM
