Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santar Alias Satendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRR No. 485 of 2024
(SANTAR ALIAS SATENDRA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 28-02-2024
Shri APS Sisodiya - learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri Dheeeraj Budholia - learned PL for the respondent-State.
Heard on admission.
Record of the Courts below has been received.
Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.2382 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 petitioner Santar Alias Satendra Singh.
This criminal revision under Section 397 (1) of CrPC has been filed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2024
passed by Ist ASJ Ambah Distt. Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.21 of
2017, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant (herein revision petitioner)
affirming the judgment and sentence dated 03/01/2017 passed by JMFC Ambah
Distt. Morena (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.300204/2014, by which the revision
petitioner has been convicted under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. Learned counsel
submits that learned Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper
perspective. Further, the learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the
contentions raised in the appeal. Learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court
committed error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner. Learned
Counsel submits that the revision petitioner was on bail during trial and during
hearing of appeal. The petitioner remained in judicial custody during trial from
22.02.2014 to 08.05.2014. He is in custody since the date of judgment i.e
29.01.2024 (in all four months). Fine amount, as awarded by trial Court, has
already been deposited by the revision petitioner. There is no likelihood of early
hearing of revision in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that
execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner may be suspended
and he 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 petitioner shall remain suspended during
pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for
compliance with following conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner on any date, on sufficient cause being shown
[Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
Where t h e revision petitioner does 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 his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC against
such revision petitioner and his 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.2282/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Rks
