Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16002 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                                1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                        CRA No. 6075 of 2018
                                               (RADHESHYAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 29-05-2024
                                 Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveria - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent - State.

Heard on I.A.No.12607/2024, which is fourth application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant- Radheshyam. Earlier three applications were dismissed as withdrawn and want

of prosecution, respectively.

Appellant - Radheshyam, is aggrieved of the judgment dated 18.05.2018, passed by the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar (M.P.), whereby, appellant-Radheshyam has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and Section 25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act, he is sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.

It is submitted that appellant is already on parole given by the administration. His wife is pregnant and, therefore, his jail sentence be

suspended temporarily to nurse his wife. It is submitted that she is expecting a baby on 26.06.2024. There is no male member to take care of his wife and, therefore, he be enlarged on bail.

Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned Govt. Advocate, in his turn, submits that appellant is getting some patronage, because his earlier application for suspension of sentence was rejected by a Coordinate Bench on 24.11.2023, with liberty to renew it after undergoing 10 years of actual sentence. Still the administration granted him parole.

Shri S.K. Kashyap, G.A., has also referred to paragraph 58 of the judgment to point out that the deceased was a youth. His wife was only 22 years of age when the incident took place. She was burdened to carry on the responsibility of two children aged about 3 years and 8 months. Thus, it is submitted that present appellant Radheshyam cannot seek any special treatment. It was a gruesome murder.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that if appellant used the period of parole for the purpose of pro-gestation, then that cannot be a ground to extend the period of liberty on the ground of his wife being pregnant and expecting a child

in the last week of June 2024. Such kind of indulgence will send a serially incorrect and inappropriate message. There is no ground on merits which is urged by Shri Naveria. Therefore, the only ground of requirement to nurse his pregnant wife, being not sufficient, application - I.A.No.12607/2024 fails and is dismissed.

                              (VIVEK AGARWAL)                                  (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
                                   JUDGE                                              JUDGE

                           A.Praj.