Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-4517-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 4517 of 2024
(RAHUL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 14-10-2024
Shri Rajnish Yadav - learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Santosh Singh Thakur - learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Record of the Courts below has been received.
Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No. 14719/2024, which is the first application under
Section 397(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of revision petitioners- Rahul, Kamal and Suhsila Bai.
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29.08.2024 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Sonkach District Dewas(M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2023 confirming
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2023 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonkach Distt. Dewas(M.P.) in Criminal
Case RCT No.295/2017 whereby the revision petitioner no.1 - Rahul has
been convicted under Sections 354, 452, 325/34 and 323/34 (2 counts) of
IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and six months
Rigorous imprisonment with fine of 1,000/- , Rs. 2000/- and Rs.500-500/-(2
counts), with default stipulations and petitioners no.2 and 3 - Kamal Singh
2 CRR-4517-2024
and Sushila Bai have been convicted under Sections 452, 325/34 and 323/34
(2 counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment
and Six months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000, Rs. 2000/-
and Rs.500-500/-(2 counts) each with default stipulations.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contends that revision
petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter. This minor altercation
aggravated into scuffle between both the parties and, thereafter, false
allegation of outraging the modesty of complainant was lodged. Learned
counsel further contended that the independent witness did not support the
prosecution story. There are material inconsistencies between oral evidence
and medical evidence. Learned trial Court and First Appellate Court did not
appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Learned Counsel further
contends that learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the
contentions raised in the appeal. He further contends that the petitioner no.1
and 2 - Rahul and Kamal Singh remained in judicial custody for one month
during trial and are undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date of
passing of judgment by the Appellate Court i.e. since 29.08.2024 and
petitioner no.3 - Sushila Bai is undergoing sentence of imprisonment
custody from the date of passing of judgment by the Appellate Court i.e.
since 29.08.2024. There is no likelihood of hearing of revision in near future.
On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail
sentence of revision petitioners may be suspended and they may be enlarged
on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the
3 CRR-4517-2024
application and prays for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view
that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that
execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioners- Rahul, Kamal
and Suhsila Bai shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and
they shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with
following conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioners shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on
18.12.2024 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The revision petitioners shall ensure hearing of the revision on
the date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal
representation on their behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from
attendance to the revision petitioners on any date, on sufficient cause being
shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules,
2008].
Where the revision petitioners do not appear on the date of their
4 CRR-4517-2024
appearance before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance
is shown, the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable
warrants to secure their attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC against
such revision petitioners and their surety without any reference to this Court
and without any impediment of the order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule
42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the revision
petitioners shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of
imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.14719/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
