Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10381 of 2023
(PRADEEP Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-02-2024
Smt. Durgesh Gupta - Advocate for appellant.
Shr D.K. Parouha - Government Advocate for respondent-State.
Record of the Court below is received.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A.No.19591/2023, which is an application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the
impugned judgment dated 08.06.2023 passed by the II Additional Sessions
Judge, Pipariya District Narmadapuram in S.T. No.60/2019.
It is contended by the counsel that the allegation against the appellant that
he inflicted injury on the head of his brother-in-law. It is contended by the
counsel that the wife of the present appellant who is Smt. Priyanka Kahar (PW-
3) has turned hostile and has not supported the allegation. It is contended by the
counsel that as per the prosecution story, the incident was as a result of sudden
and grave provocation. It is further submission of the counsel for the appellant
that the testimony of Dr. J.S. Parihar (PW-7) reveals that the injuries were not
grievous in nature and also it was opined by the Dr. J.S. Parihar that the injuries
could have been turned out to be fatal, if there was no treatment in time. It is
thus, contended by the counsel for the appellant that taking into consideration
the over all circumstances and also the fact that the appellant as well as injured
are relatives and even the witnesses are relatives, therefore, it would be
conducive to enlarge the appellant on bail who has already suffered 10 months
in jail. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant
is the father of three children and there is no one to look after them and it would
be difficult for his wife to take care of his family.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
and submitted that there are direct allegations against the appellant. The injuries
are also grievous in nature and thus, the application deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the submissions and perused the record.
It is undisputed that the incident was as a result of fracas which took
place between the relatives. The appellant as well as injured are relatives. Smt.
Priyanka Kahar (PW-3) is the wife of the present appellant who has turned
hostile. Dr. J.S. Parihar (PW-7) in his testimony stated that the injury on the
head could have been fatal, if there was no treatment in time to the injured.
Thus, taking into consideration the overall totality of the circumstances
including the fact that as of now, the appellant has suffered 10 months of
incarceration and there are three children and also the fact that the wife of the
present appellant Smt. Priyanka Kahar (PW-3) has turned hostile, without
commenting anything on the merit, this Court deems it proper to enlarge the
appellant on bail. Accordingly, I.A.No.19591/2023 is allowed.
It is directed that the execution of the remaining jail sentence passed
against appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he
be released on bail subject to depositing fine amount, if not already deposited,
and upon his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. fifty
thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 20.05.2024 and on such
further dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the
pendency of this appeal.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
