Madhya Pradesh High Court
Man Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 4198 of 2019
(MAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 31-05-2024
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Advocate for appellant.
Mrs. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for State.
Heard on I.A.No.7436 of 2024, which is First application filed under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant Man Singh.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 364-A of IPC and sentenced
to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.04.2019 passed by
Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in Special Sessions Case No.400061
of 2012.
As per the case of prosecution, on 08/05/2012 complainant Prahlad
Dhakad (P.W.3) lodged a Dehati Nalishi to the effect that he had gone to the
forest alongwith his son Mukesh Dhakad (P.W.2) and Bunty Dhakad (P.W.5)
for collecting wood at around 7.00 in the morning with a bullock-cart. While he
was returning to his village, five miscreants out of which one who was having 12
bore double barrel gun, one was having single barrel gun and two were having
Lathi in their hands, caught hold of them. Thereafter, they demanded Rs. One
Lac from them. Complainant said that he can not manage such money. Then the
miscriants beaten him with stick due to which he suffered injuries. One
miscreant said him to go back with bullock cart and come to forest with
money. One miscreant took mobile phone of son of complainant kept it with
him. Then the complainant came home with bullock cart and narrated the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 01-06-2024
11:30:57 AM
2
incident to his elder son- Shaitan and cousin Suyalal. After arranging
Rs.20,000/-, complainant alongwith Suyalal on a motorcycle came towards
Village Sankara. The miscreants threatened that if the police was informed then
their children would not be found alive. The complainant did not tell incident to
the police due to fear. All three of them came to Sankara with money and sent
back their son Shaitan. Complaiant and Suyalal reached the forest of Aharwani
on foot. Mukesh and Bunty were not seen and the miscreant caught hold of
both the boys and took them away. Complainant and Suyalal left back home.
O n the basis of Dehati Nalishi, Crime No. 86/2012 for offence under Section
364-A of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act was registered vide FIR
Ex.P.1. During the investigation, spot map was prepared and statements of
witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested and relevant seizures were
made. Upon completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan
was filed before the competent Court wherefrom the case was committed to
the Special Court for trial. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence placed
on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the present appellant while taking exception to Para
10 of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submits that
Mukesh Dhakad (P.W.2) and Bunty Dhakad (P.W.5) did not support the
prosecution story. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on
record in correct perspective. The judgment suffers from surmises and
conjectures. Further, the appellant so far has undergone Five years
incarceration. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the
liberty so granted to him. Fine amount has already been deposited. The appeal
being of 2019 is not likely to be decided in the near future. Co-accused Dheeraj
alias Dheera has already been granted bail vide CRA No.3876/2019 dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 01-06-2024
11:30:57 AM
3
5.4.2024. He Seeks parity. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the
present appellant may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the gravity of offence and hence, prays for rejection of
the application.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court is not
inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
present appellant on merits, however, regard being had to the only fact that
present appellant so far has undergone incarceration of five years, and the
appeal which is of the year 2019 is not likely to be decided in the near future, we
are of the view that present appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.7436 of 2024 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of present appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of
the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Appellant directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
30.08.2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rohit
