Shahrukh Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12178 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shahrukh Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                        CRR No. 1389 of 2024
                                             (SHAHRUKH KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 01-05-2024
                                 Shri Pradeep Katare- Advocate for revision petitioner.

                                 Shri Lokendra Shrivastava- Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Record of the Courts below has been received.

Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing. Heard on IA No.6123 of 2024, which is the first application under

Section 397(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of revision petitioner- Shahrukh Khan.

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th of March, 2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2023, whereby the appeal preferred by appellant (herein revision petitioner) affirming the judgment and sentence dated 25th of July, 2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind in Criminal Case

No.230 of 2018, by which the revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that revision petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned Trial Court committed an error in relying the evidence of police witnesses as they are interested witnesses. The learned Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.

Further, the learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the contentions raised in the appeal. Learned Counsel further submits that learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was on bail during trial and during hearing of appeal. Revision petitioner has already undergone custody for more than two months. Fine amount, as awarded by trial Court, has already been deposited by revision petitioner. There is no likelihood of early hearing of revision in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the application and prays 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 revision petitioner- Shahrukh Khan shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-

(1). The revision petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited) forthwith;

(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on 22.07.2024 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;

(3). The revision petitioner shall ensure hearing of the revision on the date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on

their behalf, on the date notified for hearing.

In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.

The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from attendance t o the revision petitioner on any date, on sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].

Where t h e revision petitioner 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 authorized 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 revision petitioner 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].

O n arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the revision petitioners shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.

Accordingly, IA No. 6123 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of. List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE

Prachi