Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 June, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12871 of 2023
(YOGESH SINGH GURJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-06-2024
Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - Advocate for the appellant no.3.
Shri S.S. Kushwah - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.11029 of 2024, which is first application under
Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
moved on behalf of appellant no.3 - Manoj Singh Gurjar who has been
convicted under Section 364 read with Section 120-B of IPC read with
Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act and Section 302 read with Section
120-B of IPC read with Sections 11,13 of the MPDVPK Act and
sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- with default
stipulations for both the offences vide impugned judgment dated
23.09.2023 passed in SC DOCT Case No.01/2018 by Special Judge
(MPDVPK Act), Joura District Morena (M.P.).
2. As per prosecution story, on 26.09.2017 Sub-Inspector Gaurav
Sharma received an information that dead-body of a person was lying in
the field of Ashok Argal. The police force went to the place of incident
and found dead-body of a person. On the basis of Adhar card and other
documents, deceased was identified as Mukesh Dubey. There were
injuries on his head. FIR bearing Crime No.80/2017 was registered under
Sections 302, 201 of IPC. During investigation, accused Yogesh, Vikki @
Vikram and Bharat have been arrested. Later on, police recorded the
statement of Lajjaram Parashar who has stated that on 18.9.2017 he heard
Dhara Singh and Manoj Gurjar talking with each other about killing of
deceased Mukesh Dubey as he was making various complaints against
appellant Dhara Singh and due to which he was placed under suspension.
After recording of statement of this witness, present appellant was made
accused in the case. The allegations against other co-accused are of
abduction and assaulting by means of baseball bat to the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in para 65 of the
impugned judgment trial Court found that this appellant has been
convicted only on the statement of Lajjaram Parashar (PW-8) and apart
from that no other incriminating material has been collected by the police.
Learned counsel has read out cross-examination para 6 and 7 of the
statement of Lajjaram (PW-8) which reveals that he has a strong political
career and his wife was defeated in the Panchayat election by the wife of
present appellant Manoj Gurjar. Thrice he contested the election of
Legislative Assembly. Hence there was no reason to remain silent for so
many days in disclosing the involvement of this appellant to the police on
7.10.2017. It is further argued that the application for suspension of
sentence of co-accused Dhara Singh Kushwah has already been allowed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the case of present appellant is
at parity with co-accused Dhara Singh Kushwah, therefore, on such
premises, learned counsel prays for suspension of jail sentence of
appellant no.3.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State opposed the application, however, he fairly conceded
that the case of present appellant is at parity with co-accused - Dhara
Singh Kushwah.
5 . Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
and also taking note of the fact that final conclusion of the appeal will take
considerable long time, without commenting on the merits of the case, we
deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant no.3 -
Manoj Singh Gurjar.
6. Accordingly, I.A.No.11029 of 2024 is allowed and the
execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant no.3 - Manoj Singh Gurjar
is hereby suspended till the final disposal of this appeal and it is ordered
that the appellant no.3 be released on bail on his depositing the fine
amount, if not already deposited, and upon furnishing a personal bond for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with a further direction
to appear before the Registry of this Court on 21.10.2024 and on such
other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard
during the pendency of this appeal.
C.C. as per rules.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
V. JUDGE V. JUDGE
vpn
