Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRR No. 555 of 2024
(VINOD AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 17-02-2024
Shri Ravi Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri VPS Tomar - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on admission.
Record of the Courts below has been received.
Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.2703 of 2024, which is the first application under
Section 397(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on
behalf of revision petitioners- Vinod, Laxman and Patiram.
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC
has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31/01/2024 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior (M.P.)
in Criminal Appeal No.433/2023, 438/2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the
appellants (herein revision petitioners) against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 31.07.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gwalior (M.P.) in RCT No.4418913/2014, has been partly allowed and the
revision petitioners have been convicted under Section 147 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo six-six months of RI with fine of Rs.200- 200/-, Section
325 of IPC r/w Section 149 (one count) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1-1
year of RI with fine of Rs.1000- 1000/- and Section 323 of IPC r/w Section 149
(four counts) of IPC with fine of Rs.600- 600/-, with default stipulations.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submits that learned
Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Further,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 22-02-2024
10:08:44 AM
2
the learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the contentions raised in
the appeal. Learned counsel submits that Ashok has amicably settled the
dispute with the accused. Vinod, Ramesh, Patiram, and Laxman have been
acquitted of the charge of Section 325 of IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC in view
of compromise with injured Ashok. Learned Trial Court and learned First
Appellate Court ignored the factum of previous enmity and exaggerations in the
evidence of interested prosecution witness. No independent witness was
examined by the prosecution. Learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court
committed error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioners. Learned
Counsel submits that the revision petitioners were on bail during trial and during
hearing of appeal. Fine amount, as awarded by trial Court and enhanced by
appellate Court, has already been deposited by the revision petitioners. There is
n o likelihood of early hearing of revision in near future. On these grounds,
learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision
petitioners 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 revision petitioners Vinod, Laxman and Patiram
shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision 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 each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following
conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioners shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on
08.04.2024 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The revision petitioners shall ensure hearing of the revision on the
date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on
their 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
t o the revision petitioners on any date, on sufficient cause being shown
[Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
W here t h e revision petitioners do not appear on the date of his
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 their attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC against
such revision petitioners and their surety without any reference to this Court and
without any impediment of the order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-
Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
O n arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the revision
petitioners shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment
under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2703/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Vijay
