Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1 CRR-4219-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRR No. 4219 of 2024
(SANDEEP Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 04-10-2024
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mody - AAG for respondent/State.
Mr. Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the respondent [COMP].
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been arrested on
01.10.2024, therefore, I.A. No. 21244 of 2024, an application for exemption to
surrender before the learned trial Court, be dismissed having rendered infructuous.
In view of above, I.A.No. I.A. No. 21244 of 2024 is dismissed as rendered
infructuous.
I.A. No. 21786 of 2024, an application under Section 301 Cr.P.C. for
assisting the State counsel during hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed.
Also heard on I.A. No. 21682/2024, which is First application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the petitioner.
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CR.P.C.
is preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 01.08.2024 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda,
Dist. Vidisha (M.P.) affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
31.07.2021 passed in Criminal Case No.525/2014 by Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Ganjbasoda, Dist. Vidisha (M.P.) whereby, petitioner has been convicted
and sentenced under Section 325 of IPC to undergo maximum one year RI with
maximum fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts below have
2 CRR-4219-2024
wrongly appreciated the evidence and convicted the petitioner. As per prosecution
story petitioner inflicted injuries on the right hand of the injured which resulted
into fracture. Further submission is that the injuries is not on vital part of the
body. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in
the statement of prosecution witnesses. The petitioner was on bail during trial and
never misused the liberty so granted to him. Present revision is likely to take long
time to come up for final hearing. Hence, prayed to suspend the jail sentence of
the petitioner looking to the short period of jail sentence and release him on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the application and prayed
for its rejection.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the application (I.A.No. 21682/2024) is
allowed. It is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The petitioner shall
now appear before the Registry of this Court on 18.12.2024 and on all other dates
which may be given by the Office for his appearance till final disposal of the
present case.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
