Gujju @ Gajraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12485 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gujju @ Gajraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024

Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

                                                                   1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 8757 of 2023
                                      (GUJJU @ GAJRAJ AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                    Dated : 03-05-2024
                           Shri Prakash Upadhyay - Advocate for the appellants.

                           Shri A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Rajendra Yadav - Advocate for the objector.

Trial Court record has been received.

Heard on admission.

Trial Court record perused.

Prima facie this appeal seems to be arguable. Hence, admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A. No.29281/2023.

This second application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellants Surendra and Narendra for grant of bail, pending the appeal.

Their first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.12.2023 passed in I.A. No.16367/2023.

Appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 307/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo 5 - 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000/- with

default stipulation, vide judgment dated 30.06.2023 passed in S.T. No.201/2021 (State of M.P. vs. Gajju @ Gajraj and others).

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants had not participated in the commission of offence. The only allegation against them is that of exhorting the main accused father to fire second gun shot. Learned counsel has drawn out attention towards evidence of Mohan Patel (PW/2), brother of the injured Motilal (PW/1) who in para 5 of his evidence has specifically stated that Surendra and Narendra were uttering abuses along with the main accused. It is submitted that no overt act has

been attributed to the present appellants. Same is the evidence of Jamna Patel (PW/3). It is submitted that appellants have undergone more than one year actual jail sentence. They have been implicated only because they are the son of the main accused. They have no criminal antecedent. The sentence awarded is only five years. Appellants have fair chances to succeed in the appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that appellants may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the objector placing reliance on the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in Cr.A. No.2316/2014 (Sunil vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) and order dated 24.04.2021 passed in Cr.A No.949/2020 (Lala @ Jitendra and others vs. The State of M.P.) have

submitted that even if any application is dismissed as withdrawn, same shall be taken to have been dismissed on merit. Placing reliance on the judgment of Chinta Pulla Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AIR 1993 SC 1899), it is contended that appellants had shared the common intention and in furtherance of the common intention gun shots were fired by the main accused father of the appellants. Therefore, they be not released on bail.

We have gone through the evidence of injured witness (PW/1) and of eye- witnesses Mohan Patel (PW/2), Jamna Patel (PW/3) and Rajaram Patel (PW/4). Having taken into consideration their evidence and the material on record, we are inclined to release the appellants on bail as only 5 years jail sentence has been awarded and if same is not suspended, the purpose of filing of this appeal would become futile as there are bleak possibilities of hearing of this appeal in near future.

Consequently, I.A. No.29281/2023 is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of appellants Surendra and Narendra is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited). It is directed that the appellants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court on 21.10.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

                           (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)                              (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
                                    JUDGE                                              JUDGE

                   ak