Rajesh Urf Tikkal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6126 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajesh Urf Tikkal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2024

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Chief Justice

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 10273 of 2023
                                            (RAJESH URF TIKKAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 28-02-2024
                                 Shri Ashok Kumar Koshta - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Shri Pramod Thakre - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

IA No. 19732 of 2023 is an application seeking for suspension of sentence and bail filed on behalf of appellant-Rajesh @ Tikkal.

The appellant herein is one of the co-accused in Crime No.40 of 2016.

The bail applications of co-accused Gulab @ Bali Singh, Hemlata Lodhi and Shivdas Raikwar have been rejected by a detailed common order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Cr.A. Nos. 3557, 4106 and 5042 of 2023. That co- accused-Hemlata was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the IPC; co-accused Gulab Singh and Gopi Singh were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 201 of the IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant-Rajesh herein and co-accused Shivdas were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 201 of the IPC as mentioned in the

impugned judgment.

So far as the appellant is concerned, he was identified by the eyewitness Jai Kumar Shukla (PW3). He has narrated the manner in which the offence has taken place and the role played by the appellant herein.

On considering the same as well as the fact that the bail applications of other accused were rejected on similar facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. Hence, IA No. 19732 of 2023 is rejected.

                                 (RAVI MALIMATH)       (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                   CHIEF JUSTICE            JUDGE
                           SKM