Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phoolsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-4015-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 4015 of 2023
(PHOOLSINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-08-2024
Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Bhanupratap Singh Chauhan, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Further heard on IA No. 12724 of 2024 , third application under
Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellants Phool Singh and
Thinku Bhadoriya seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Earlier
first IA No. 5192/2023 and second I A No. 15345/2023, applications of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail, were dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 21/07/2023 and order dated 19/03/2024.
Appellants stood convicted under Section 458 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 395 of
the IPC read with Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo
ten years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation vide judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 28/02/2023 passed by Special Judge,
(MPDVPK )Act Bhind (M.P.) in Case No. 17/2014 (Dacoity).
Learned Counsel for the appellants, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that learned Trial Court found proved
2 CRA-4015-2023
allegations against accused Tinku and Phool Singh for lurking house
trespass and robbery. Co-accused Umesh Pandey and Shailendra have been
acquitted by the Trial Court. Still, the Trial Court has convicted appellants
for offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC read with Section 13 of
the MPDVPK Act. Learned Court committed error in convicting the
appellants for offence of dacoity in absence of proof of robbery committed
by five or more persons. Learned Counsel further submits that impugned
judgment passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures
and surmises. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting
and sentencing the present appellants without appreciating the prosecution
evidence properly. There are material contradictions and omissions in the
evidence of witnesses. Appellant Phool Singh and Tinku Singh have already
undergone custody of 31-31 days respectively during trial and they are
undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date of judgment
28/02/2023. 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.
Upon 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
3 CRA-4015-2023
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 of the same amount to 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 14/10/2024
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
her 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.
The 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 appellants do not appear on the date of their 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
4 CRA-4015-2023
impediment of the order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of
M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the appellants
shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.12724 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
