Purushottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16137 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Purushottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2024

Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

                                                              1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 3615 of 2022
                                        (PURUSHOTTAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 30-05-2024
                                 Shri Vijay Chand Rai - Advocate for the appellants.

                                 Shri S.M.Patel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.

Trial Court record has been received.

Heard on admission.

Prima facie, this appeal seems to be arguable. Hence, admitted for

final hearing.

Heard on I.A. No.12154/2024, an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants, pending the appeal.

Each of the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 323/34 (05 counts) and section 325/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs.500/- for each count under section 323/34; whereas under section 325/34 of IPC appellant No.1

has been sentenced for R.I. 01 year and fine of Rs.1000/- while appellants No.2 and 3 have been sentenced for R.I. 06 months and fine of Rs.1000/- each with default stipulation vide judgment dated 04.04.2022 delivered by XVIth Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur in S.T No.214/2011 (State of M.P. Vs. Purushottam and others).

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants have not committed any offence. They have been erroneously convicted by the trial Court. It is submitted that in the course of trial appellants were on

bail. They have not misused the liberty granted by way of bail during trial. Even after conviction and passing of order of jail sentence, learned trial Court itself had suspended the jail sentence of the appellants till 20.5.2022. Thereafter, a coordinate Bench of this extended the period of suspension of jail sentence on 29.4.2022 and 27.6.2022 till next date of hearing, it was extended by coordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the case was listed on 28.7.2022, 26.8.2022, 27.1.2023, 14.2.2023 and 29.3.2023. It is submitted that appellants have surrendered before the trial court on 14.05.2024 which is apparent from Document No.1 annexed with the I.A. The appellants have fair chance to succeed in the appeal. It is further

submitted that a short sentence has been awarded by the trial Court and there is no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future. Therefore, if the execution of jail sentence of appellants is not suspended, the purpose of filing of this appeal would become futile. Therefore, it has been prayed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants may be suspended and they be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the grant of bail to the appellants.

Having considered the short nature of sentence and the fact that there is no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future, I am inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellants.

Consequently, I.A. No.12154/2024 is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of appellants Purushottam, Preeti Sahu and Smt. Kusum is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already

deposited). It is directed that the appellants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court on 25.10.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE

MKL