Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maan Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 5866 of 2021
(MAAN SINGH BAGHEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-02-2024
Shri Prakhar Dengula - Advocate for appellant.
Shri K.S. Tomar - Public Prosecutor for respondent State.
Heard on I.A.No.576 of 2024, firs t application filed on behalf of
appellant Maan Singh Baghel under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 364 read wtih Section 120 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with
default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.07.2021 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK) Act, Shivpuri in S.T.
No.400012/2015.
The appellant so far has undergone 04 years' incarceration approximately.
As per prosecution story, a missing report No. 03/14 was lodged with
description of facts as mentioned in para 3 of the impugned judgment.
Thereafter, on further investigation it was found that abductees Tulsiram and
Jaipal Khalko were abducted by unknown persons. Accordingly, Crime Case
No. 51/2014 was registered vide Ex.P/55. Tulsiram and Jaipal Khalko were
recovered and Panchnamas to that effect were prepared vide Ex. P/13 and Ex.
P/4, respectively. After recording of statements of the abductees and other
witnesses and collection of incriminating material, challan was filed. Case was
committed for trial to the sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon critical
evaluation of evidence placed on record has convicted and sentenced the
present appellant along with other co-accused persons as referred above.
Shri Prakhar Dengula, learned counsel for the appellant while taking
exception to the impugned judgment submits that the ingredients of Section
364-A are not fulfilled in the instant case as there is no evidence related to
demand from any person other than the abductees as ransom for release of the
abductees. On a mere statement of abductee Jaipal Khalko that for demand of
ransom he and Tulsiram were abducted, present appellant has been convicted
and sentenced as mentioned above. It is also submitted that the co-accused
Mohru alias Moharpal Banjara and Gheesa @ Gheesaram have been extended
the benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court in Cr.A. No.6466 of 2021
and Cr.A. No.6706 of 2021 vide orders dated 01.09.2023 and 08.11.2023. The
appeal is of the year 2021 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the
appeal in near future. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail on behalf of appellant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State supporting
the judgment impugned opposed the application with submission that it is a
case of abduction for demand as found proved by the Sessions Court, hence
n o exception can be taken in the context of suspension of jail sentence and
grant of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the fact that present appellant has suffered
incarceration for approximately 04 years and the appeal is of the year 2021 and
there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances as well as considering the fact that co-accused persons, namely,
Mohru alias Moharpal Banjara and Gheesa @ Gheesaram have been enlarged on
bail by this Court, present appellant is held entitled for suspension of jail
sentence.
Accordingly, I.A.No.576 of 2024, is hereby allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already
deposited). The appellant is directed to mark his appearance before the
Registry of this Court first on 19.03.2024 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.As. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
pwn*
