Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 15756 of 2023
(RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-02-2024
Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri D.G.Mishra, learned G.A. for the State.
Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The criminal appeal is admitted for final hearing.
3. Also heard on I.A. No.2270/2024, which is first application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant no.1 Radheshyam Sondhiya, appellant no.2
Ghanshyam Sondhiya and appellant no.3 Arjun Sondhiya.
4. The trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 325/34 of
the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and
under section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 5 years of R.I.
with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation respectively, vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora District-Rajgarh in S.T. No.313/2021.
5. Prosecution story in short is that on 18.06.2023 at around 5 p.m.
appellants abused the complainant party Mangilal and Dev Singh in filthy
language and thereafter with intent to kill the complainant Mangilal and Dev
Singh assaulted them by means of lathi on their head and other body parts.
Mangilal received injuries on his head and Dev Singh received fracture in the
middle finger of right hand. As per opinion of treating doctor injures received
by Mangilal was grievous in nature and was also dangerous to life.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 27-02-2024
17:56:54
2
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have not
committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in the case. It is
submitted that both the parties are close relatives and they have also filed
compromise application before the trial court but the trial court has not
considered the compromise application and had convicted and sentenced the
appellants. It is also submitted that both the parties have filed compromise
application in this case also. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near
future therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellants
may be suspended and they may be released on bail.
7. Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the
prayer of the appellants.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that complainant has no
objection if appellants are released on bail.
9. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and coupled with
the fact that the final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A.
No.2270/2024, is allowed and the jail sentence of the appellants shall remain
suspended.
11. It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, appellant no.1 Radheshyam Sondhiya, appellant no.2 Ghanshyam
Sondhiya and appellant no.3 Arjun Sondhiya shall be released on bail, on
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only)Each along with separate sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court
firstly on 06.05.2024, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry
in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
12. Compromise application can be considered at the time of final
hearing of the appeal.
13. List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
ajit
