Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailu @ Abhishek vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 11206 of 2023
(SHAILU @ ABHISHEK AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-03-2024
Shri Ravi Dwivedi- learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Awasthi- learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No. 3983/2024, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.
P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant No.1- Shailu @ Abhishek seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant No.1 stands convicted under Section 307 of IPC Sections
25(1) (1-b) (A) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo five
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, one year's RI with fine of
Rs.500/- and three years' RI with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2023 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Court No.4 Electricity Act) Gwalior
(M.P.) in S.T. No. 1600667 of 2014.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that no one was injured in
the incident. Merely on the suspicion, appellant is convicted and sentenced.
Both the parties have filed interlocutory application U/s 320 (2) of Cr.P.C along
with their affidavits for compromise in the matter. The factum of compromise
was duly verified Pr.Registrar of this Court vide verification report dated
30.01.2024 stating that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that learned Trial
Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant
without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Learned Trial Court
committed error in convicting the appellant for common intention to commit
attempt to murder along with other accused. The appellant was on bail during
trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Fine amount has
already been deposited by the appellant. The appellant remained in custody
during trial for about four and half months. He is in custody since the date of
judgment i.e. 24.08.2023 (total about 6 months). There is no likelihood of
hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that
execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he
may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
application and prayed 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 appellant No.1 Shailu @ Abhishek only shall
remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on
bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-
(1). The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2). He shall appear before the Trial Court on 01.04.2024 and on such
further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed
for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on his/her/their
behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
(4). The appellant shall not involve in any other criminal activity or
offence after his release.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authroised to grant exemption from attendance
to the appellant on any date, on sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII
Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
Where the appellant 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 authorised 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 appellant 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].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the appellant shall be
forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to
the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3983/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
