Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sailendra @ Sailu Bhadauria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2213 of 2023
(SAILENDRA @ SAILU BHADAURIA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-05-2024
Shri Dependra Singh Kushwaha - Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A.No.4550/2024, which is first application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence on
behalf of appellant No.1 - Shailendra Singh alias Shailu.
Appellant stands convicted under Sections 302/120B of IPC and
sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, under Section
394/397 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-,
under Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with
fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3
years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- with usual default stipulation vide judgment
dated 15/12/2022 passed in SC DOCT No.56/2009 by Special Judge (Dacoity),
Bhind (M.P.).
A s per prosecution story, Dashrath (PW-7) has given information to
Police Station on 22/05/2007 to the effect that a dead body of unknown person
lying near Mehanda Ghat. Later on, it was identified as Narendra Thapak
(deceased) who was engaged in the business of travel agency and he was also
the owner of Tabera Car bearing Registration No.HR-38-M-7100 which was
booked by present appellant and other co-accused persons. They were last
seen in the vehicle with the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body was found.
Stepney, Jack, Mobile phone and chain were found missing from the body of
deceased and the vehicle. Accordingly, case has been registered and present
appellant along with other co-accused persons were arrested. After their arrest,
TIP was conducted vide Ex.P/4.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent
person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The appellant has
already suffered jail incarceration for the period of more than 2 years. He is a
young person and not having any criminal antecedent. He is permanent resident
of District - Bhind. There is strong case in favour of the appellant. Final
disposal of the appeal will take considerable long time. Under these
circumstances, he prays that the application be allowed and the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant be suspended till final disposal of the appeal.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection by submitting
that the trial Court after due consideration of the evidence available on record,
convicted the appellant. Hence, he is not entitled to grant benefit of suspension
of sentence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with
due care.
So far as merits of the case is concerned, Rajendra Sharma (PW-6), the
brother of the deceased, identified the present appellant in TIP and Gaurav
(PW-2), the son of the deceased identified him in the dock identification. Smt.
Mamta (PW-3), the wife of the deceased deposed to the effect that she received
a call from the deceased demanding bottle of water, watch, goggle and Rs.500/-
. Gaurav (PW-2) & Rajendra Sharma (PW-6) both went to the said Tabera Car
to hand over these articles to the deceased and saw the present appellant in the
Car. That apart, there is recovery of Stepney & Jack from the possession of
present appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that at this
stage, it is not a fit case for allowing the application for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly I.A.No.4550/2024 stands dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
