Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kumar Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1 CRA-28-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 28 of 2023
(KRISHNA KUMAR UIKEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 06-08-2024
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Ms. Ankita Singh Parihar -
Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No.10710 of 2024, the third application filed by appellant
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for seeking suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
The appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 409 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, under Sections 467,
468 & 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of
Rs.25,000/-, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and
has falsely been implicated in the matter. According to him, appellant has been in
custody for a substantial period. He further submits that there is no likelihood of
hearing of appeal in near future. Hence, it is prayed that the application for
suspension of sentence may be considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and
prays for its rejection.
Record reveals that prior to this third application two other applications
were decided by this Court on merits respectively on 12.07.2023 and 20.02.2024.
In the second application the only ground raised was the period of custody. In this
application too the request has been made to suspend the sentence on the ground
2 CRA-28-2023
of almost 22 months of custody. As against the sentence of 7 years this period of
custody is, therefore, around two years.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant has relied upon the
decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jeetu Khatik vs. State of
Chhattisgarh (Cr.A. No.603/2022), Vishnubhai Ganpatbhai Patel and another vs.
State of Gujarat (Cr.A No.3415/2023) and Atul @ Ashutosh vs. State of M.P.
Cr.A. No.579/2024.
In the case of Vishnubhai @ Ganpatbhai and Atul @ Ashutosh (Supra) the
period already undergone by the convict was almost 50% of the sentence
awarded. In the case of Jeetu Khatik (supra) the accused had served 2 months
imprisonment against awarded sentence of three years. Learned Senior Counsel
placed emphasis on the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishnubhai
Ganpatbhai (supra), wherein it was held that "there is no hard and fast rule, which
requires an accused to undergo sentence for a particular period before his prayer
for suspension of sentence is considered." On this basis, it has been argued that
the period already suffered by the appellant is immaterial while considering his
application for suspension of sentence.
It is true that the period undergone by appellant should not be the basis to
consider the request of suspension of sentence. The prime concern of the Court
should be to decide the appeal timely. It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and another (2020)8 SCC 645 that while
deciding the bail application at pre-conviction stage the Courts may be liberal on
the principle that there is presumption of innocence in favour of accused and bail
is the rule while jail is an exception, however, in case of post-conviction bail, the
question of presumption of innocence does not arise and for an application for
suspension of sentence the Court has to consider the prima facie merits of the
3 CRA-28-2023
appeal coupled with other factors and if there is any patent infirmity in the
impugned judgment, the relief of suspension of sentence may be allowed.
In the case on hand, this exercise was undertaken while dismissing the first
application on merits on 12.07.2023, therefore, this Court is not supposed to
revisit the merits again nor they have been argued by the learned Senior Counsel.
It may also be mentioned here that in connected criminal appeal an application of
similar nature filed by co-convict has also been dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, no case is made out here for suspension of
sentence only on the ground of period of custody. Hence, the application under
consideration is dismissed.
The appellant may have an apprehension that he would be subjected to
suffer long incarceration for the reason that his appeal is of recent origin. To
redress his grievance, the Registry is directed to list the matter on 21.09.2024 on
top of the list scheduled for final hearing with a purpose to ensure that the case is
positively taken up.
List this case for final hearing alongwith Cr.A.No.897/2023 on
21.09.2024.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
rv
