Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ballu @ Veer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 246 of 2017
(BALLU @ VEER SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-03-2024
Ms. Nikita Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
IA No.3458 of 2024, an application for change in counsel is taken up,
considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
Ms. Nikita Jain, learned counsel, and her associates are permitted to
prosecute the instant appeal on behalf of the appellant.
Also heard on I.A.No.3505 of 2024, second repeat application under
Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on
behalf of appellant- Ballu @ Veer Singh. His earlier application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail has been dismissed as withdrawn.
Present appellant stood convicted under Sections 302 and 449 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and RI
for Ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 16.11.2016 passed by V Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.334 of 2014.
Appellant - Ballu @ Veer Singh so far has suffered incarceration of 09
years 10 months, as transpired during the course of hearing.
A s per prosecution story, on 19.04.2014 at about 12:30 am when
complainant Dwarika Prasad heard screams from the adjacent room to his room
in which his mother was sleeping, he along with his wife Mamta and children
went to the said room and saw that accused Ballu resident of Udaipur was
throttling his mother Mullobai saying that because of her, his marriage was not
being taken place with Preeti. At that time, Mullobai was rendered restless on
strangulation by the accused. The accused was tried to be overpowered but he
could succeed in fleeing away by climbing the wall and in the scuffle his shirt
remained in the hands of wife of Dwarika Prasad. In the incident, Mullobai
succumbed. When by seeing this complainant and his wife screamed, his
younger brother Kedar and his wife Sushila and elder brother Murari came on
spot. The report also found mention that last four months before the incident,
accused had taken away the daughter of Dwarikaprasad but left her at Jhansi
and from then he was making pressure for solemnization of his marriage with
her and in furtherance whereof he caused death of the deceased. On the basis
of this, FIR was registered. Investigation was set in motion. Upon completion
of investigation including recording of statements, collection of evidence and
necessary formalities, challan was filed. The Sessions Court on appreciation of
evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the present appellant as
referred above.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the present appellant
has falsely been implicated. However, she confined her argument to the extent
of long incarceration suffered by the present appellant viz.09 years and 10
months. It is further submitted that the appeal being of 2017 is not likely to be
decided in the near future. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the
present appellant may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of
the respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court is not
inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
present appellant on merits, however, regard being had to the only fact that
present appellant has suffered incarceration of 09 years and 10 months and the
appeal which is of the year 2017 is not likely to be decided in the near future, we
are of the view that present appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3505 of 2024 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of appellant- Ballu @ Veer Singh shall remain suspended
during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject
to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Appellant- Ballu @ Veer Singh is directed to appear before the Registry
of this Court first on 03.07.2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be
fixed in this behalf with further following conditions:-
1. Appellant- Ballu @ Veer Singh shall mark his presence before the
concerned police station twice in every month i.e. on 02nd and 04th Saturday.
2. Appellant- Ballu @ Veer Singh shall not move to the place of resident
of complainant at any point of time. Besides, if appellant is found to be
involved in any such activity much less criminal activity causing threat to peace
and tranquility in the area or life and liberty of the complainant and others in any
way, the respondent/ State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for
cancellation of his bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3505 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
pd
