Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 3583 of 2024
(RANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-04-2024
Shri Ankur Maheshwari- learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Neeraj Dhamanya- learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Record of the trial Court has already been received.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.5463 of 2024, first application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No.1 Ranjeet Singh and
No.2 Vicky @ Vikas seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant No.1 Ranjeet Singh stood convicted under Sections 325
of the IPC and 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI
with fine of Rs. 5000/- and one year RI with fine of Rs. 5000/-
respectively and appellant No.2 Vicky @ Vikas stood convicted under
Section 324 and 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI
with fine of Rs.5000/- and two years RI with fine of Rs. 5000/-
respectively, with default stipulations vid e judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 01/03/2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar (M.P.)
in S.T. No. 84/2022.
Learned Counsel for appellants, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that the complainant party was
aggressor. They caused severe injury to Ramkrishan-father of appellant
No.2 Vicky @ Vikas in the alleged offence. There were material
inconsistency between the ocular evidence and medical evidence with
regard to injuries caused to the complainant Pehalwan Singh. Learned Trial
Court committed an error in convicting the appellant on the basis of
evidence of relative and interested witnesses despite material
contradictions and inconsistency in their evidence. Learned counsel
submits that the impugned judgment passed b y learned Trial Court is
based on assumption, conjectures and surmises. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. The jail
sentence of the appellants was suspended by learned trial Court, under
Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C till 01/04/2024. Fine amount has already been
deposited by the appellants. There is no likelihood of early hearing of
appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that
execution of remaining jail sentence of appellants may be suspended and
they may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
application and prays for its rejection.
U p o n hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without
commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court
is of the view that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly
directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellants shall remain
suspended during pendency of this appeal and they shall be enlarged on
bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following
conditions:-
(1). The appellants shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court on 13th
May, 2024 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial
Court;
(3). The appellants shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date
fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on
his behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this
order granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
T h e Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from
attendance to the appellant on any date, on sufficient cause being shown
[Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
Where the appellant does not appear on the date of his appearance
before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance is
shown, the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable
warrants to secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC
against such appellant and his surety without any reference to this Court
and without any impediment of the order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule
42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
O n arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the appellant
shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 5463 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
