Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12960 of 2023
(BRAJESH RAI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 21-05-2024
Shri Simran Kothari- Advocate for appellants.
Shri Kuldeep Singh- Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Appeal being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.18916 of 2023, first application under
Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant No.1- Brajesh
Rai seeking suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant No.1- Brajesh Rai stood convicted under Section 307
read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation, vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th of September,
2023 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First
Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 174 of
2015.
Learned Counsel for the appellants, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that minor altercation ensued
between food vendors with regard to placing of carts (thela). As per
allegation, Jeetu assaulted Suresh Lodhi with iron weight on his head.
Thereafter, Brajesh (present appellant) also assaulted with iron weight. He
sustained injuries. Learned Counsel further contends that there was no
intention to cause grievous hurt or life-threatening injuries in the minor
altercation between the parties. No offence, as alleged is made out against
present appellant. Learned trial Court ignored these important aspects of
the matter. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is
based on assumption, conjectures and surmises. The learned Trial Court
has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellant
without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Appellant-
Brajesh has already undergone custody of almost nine months and
appellant is undergoing jail sentence from the date of judgment i.e.
27/09/2023. No criminal antecedent is reported against the appellant. Fine
amount has already been deposited. There is no likelihood of early hearing
of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that the
execution of remaining jail sentence of present appellant may be
suspended and appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
application and prays for its rejection.
U p o n 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
Brajesh Rai 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.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 appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 29th of
July, 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 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.
T h e Trial Court shall be authorized 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 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 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].
O n 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, IA No.18916 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed
of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
