Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod @ Praveen Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRR No. 398 of 2024
(PRAMOD @ PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-05-2024
Shri Anand Purohit- learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri A.K.Shukla- learned 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.1988 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 Pramod @ Praveen Kumar.
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
24/01/2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri
(M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.07/2020, whereby the appeal preferred by the
appellant (herein revision petitioner) affirming the judgment and sentence dated
14/01/2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khaniyadhana District
Shivpuri (M.P.) in Criminal Case No100049/2014, by which the revision
petitioner has been convicted under Section 51(1) read with Section 9 of the
Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that revision
petitioner has been convicted for the reason that one trophy of black buck
horns was recovered from blue coloured Maruti van which was found
registered in name of revision petitioner. Learned counsel submits that Lok Pal
Singh Yadav (P.W.5) did not support the prosecution, who was sole witness to
the fact that present petitioner was present in the vehicle. No incriminating
evidence was available against the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner has
already undergone custody for more than three months. Learned counsel
submits that 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 Trial Court and First Appellate Court
committed error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner. Fine
amount, as awarded by trial Court, has already been deposited by the 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 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
04/07/2024 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, I.A. No.1988/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
