Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Badal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8562 of 2022
(DEEPAK BADAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-02-2024
Shri Manish Datt- Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Siddharth Bendel -
Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rajkumar Raghuwanshi - Advocate for objector.
Shri D.K. Paroha -Government Advocate for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.29364/2023, which is an application under Section 389 (1) of the
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section
307/34 of I.P.C and Section 323 of IPC and Section 506-II of IPC, and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years, 6 months and 1 year respectively with fine of
Rs.4,000/- & Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the co-accused Babloo @
Purshottam has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24/11/2023. It is
contended by the counsel that this Court while taking into consideration the overall facts
and the nature of injuries, has enlarged the co-accused on bail. It is contended by the
counsel that the allegations against the co-accused was that he inflicted the injury with the
aid of iron rod whereas the present applicant inflicted injury with the aid of sword. It is
also contended by the counsel that paragraph 22 of the judgment reflects that there was a
medical opinion that the injuries could have been turned out to be fatal, if there was no
treatment on time. It is contended by the counsel that the appellant has suffered
incarceration of 2 year and 2 months in custody, thus, the present appellant deserves to
be enlarged on bail.
P er contra, learned counsel for the State as well as the objector opposed the
prayer. It is contended by the counsel that the case of the appellant stands on different
footing inasmuch as, the present appellant had inflicted injury with the aid of sword,
therefore, cannot claim parity with the case of co-accused Babloo @ Purshottam, thus,
the application deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the rival submissions and perused the case diary.
Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the record it is evident
that the co-accused was carrying rod and the present appellant was carrying sword
Undisputedly, co-accused has been enlarged on bail. As per paragraph 22 of the
judgment which refers to the testimony of Dr. Amber Joshi (PW-8), who expressed that
had there not been proper treatment on time, the injury could have been turned out to be
fatal and dangerous to life; thus taking into consideration the overall facts and the period
of custody already suffered by the appellant, this Court deem it proper to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A.No.29364/2023 is allowed.
The execution of jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended subject to
depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited) and on his furnishing a personal
bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear
before the trial Court on 09.05.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by
that Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C.C. as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
