Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun @Bhaiya Vais vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7698 of 2019
(ARUN @BHAIYA VAIS AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 28-02-2024
Shri Pushpendra Kumar Dubey - Advocate for appellant No.2.
Shri Punit Shroti - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.27663/2023, which is the second application filed for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2 namely Akhilesh
Kumar @ Jittu.
The earlier application of appellant No.2 for suspension of his sentence
and grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.08.2022.
Vide impugned judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed by First Additional
Sessions Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna, in Session Trial No.262/2018,
appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for life with fine of
Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for appellant No.2 submits that though appellant No.2
has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC, but according to him, the case of
prosecution which has been considered by the trial Court, it is still suspicious
that the present appellant has committed any crime or not. It is submitted that as
per case of prosecution, the incident occurred at about 02:00 am and in the dark
night, the sole eye-witness namely Umesh (PW/7) has seen the accused persons
from their back. According to him, in the dark night, it was almost impossible
to identify the accused persons that too at the distance of 50 to 60 meters. It is
also submitted that one of the co-accused persons i.e. Ramraj @ Dadul Vais
(appellant No.3), who was not properly identified by PW/7, has been granted
bail by this Court. It is further submitted that as per the story narrated by PW/7,
he cannot be considered to be a trustworthy witness, but the Court relying upon
his statement has passed the judgment and awarded sentence to the accused
persons. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence; the nature of
injury caused to the deceased and the custody period of appellant No.2 which
is almost five years and eight months, he may be enlarged on bail.
On other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer of
bail and submitted that the story as has been narrated by PW/7 was relied upon
by the trial Court giving proper explanation in paragraph-23 of the judgment as
to why his statement cannot be discarded. It is submitted that looking to the
nature of crime committed by appellant No.2 and his period of custody, he is
not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, prima facie, we find substance in the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellant No.2. Therefore,
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A. No.27663/2023 is
allowed.
It is directed that remaining jail sentence awarded to appellant No.2 shall
remain suspended and he shall be released on bail subject to his depositing the
amount of fine, if not already deposited, and on his furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the Registry of this Court
on 06.05.2024 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard.
Accordingly, I.A. No.27663/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List this appeal for final hearing in due course.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
dm
DEVASHISH MISHRA
2024.03.01 17:34:11
+05'30'
