Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roop Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9562 of 2022
(ROOP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-02-2024
Shri Sharad Verma - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent-State of
M.P.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to
withdraw I.A. No.6840 of 2023 an application for suspension of remaining jail
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant no.1-Roop Singh.
I.A. No.6840 of 2023 is dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of
appellant no.1-Roop Singh.
Heard on I.A. No.6840 of 2023 application under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant no.2-
Brajesh Lodhi, appellant no.3-Lakhan Lodhi arising out of judgment dated
22.09.2022 delivered in S.T. No.21 of 2018 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge,
Hata, District Damoh.
The appellant no.2- Brajesh Lodhi has been convicted and sentenced for
the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, under Section 341 of IPC to
undergo S.I. for one month with fine of Rs.100/-and under Section 307/34 of
IPC to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default
stipulation.
The appellant no.3- Lakhan Lodhi has been convicted and sentenced for
the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, under Section 341 of IPC to
undergo S.I. for one month with fine of Rs.100/-and under Section 307/34 of
IPC to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for appellant nos.2 and 3 urged that the prosecution
story shows that appellant no.1 allegedly caused gun shot injuries to deceased -
Hanumat. The medical report shows that multiple injuries were caused by one
gun. The allegation against the remaining appellants is relating to exhortation.
The appellant nos. 2 and 3 remained in actual custody for more than six years.
It was a case of free fight in which the appellant no. 1 also sustained injuries. In
that event, it is individual role of each of the accused persons, which is
required to be gone into and examined. In that event, the sole role attributed on
these appellants is exhortation. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in
near future. Thus, considering the period of custody and bleak chances of final
hearing, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant nos.2 and 3 may be
suspended.
Learned Government Counsel for the State opposed the application for
suspension of remaining jail sentence of appellant nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of
objection.
Considering the limited role attributed on these appellants, period of
custody and bleak chances of final hearing in near future, without expressing
any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend
the remaining jail sentence of appellant nos. 2 and 3.
Accordingly, I.A. No.6840 of 2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of this appellant nos.2 and 3 is hereby suspended and it
is directed that appellant no.2- Brajesh Lodhi, appellant no.3-Lakhan
Lodhi be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each 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, Hata, district Damoh on 29th of April 2024
and also on such other dates as may be fixed by aforesaid trial court in this
regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
