Mrigesh Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16029 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mrigesh Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

                                                                1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                       CRA No. 13276 of 2023
                                             (MRIGESH JAISWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 29-05-2024
                                 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi - Advocate for appellant.

                                 Shri D.K.Parouha - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Appellant has filed I.A. No.11839/2024 - an application under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence.

2. Appellant has been convicted under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced

to undergo R.I. for 7 years & fine with default stipulations.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant is

in jail since 21/2 years and that period is substantial period in jail. He relied upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2004) 13 SCC 526. In said case appellant was in jail for two years and four months for conviction under Section 304-B for a period of seven years. Apex Court held that sentence of two years and four months is substantial period of sentence and sentence was suspended. Considering the same, appellant's sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Appellant is earlier convicted for committing offences under Section 304-II for a period of 10 years. Appellant has committed second offence and in this offence also, he has been convicted. Since appellant is a convicted offender, therefore, period of two years and six months spent in jail cannot be said to be substantial period. Appellant has committed offence of robbery and

offence is serious in nature.

5. Considering the same, I.A. for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

6. If appeal does not reaches for final hearing within 31/2 years, then appellant is at liberty to file repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

nd