Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukhtiyar Gulla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-1047-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 1047 of 2025
(MUKHTIYAR GULLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 07-04-2025
Shri Palash Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Madhusudan Yadav, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Revision being arguable, admitted for final hearing.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on I.A. No.3289/2025, which is the first application under
Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 397 of Cr.P.C
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of revision
petitioner - Mukhtiyar Gulla.
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2025, passed by
Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.159/2024
affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.09.2024, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur(M.P.) in
Case No./RCT No.1115/2017 whereby revision petitioner has been convicted
under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and sentenced to
Rigorous Imprisonment for 04 months with fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation. The appeal filed by the present petitioner was partially allowed
and the sentence of imprisonment for 06 months was reduced to Rigorous
2 CRR-1047-2025
Imprisonment for 04 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- was reduced to Rs.500/-.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision
petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. Both, the trial Court and the
first appellate Court, have committed error in convicting the revision
petitioner ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the
prosecution evidence. Learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court did
not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the prosecution had failed to prove that the
externment order was duly served on the petitioner. Further, the petitioner
went himself to police station informing that he wish to appear in a civil
case. He was taken into custody. The petitioner did not violate the
externment order. The independent witness did not support the prosecution.
Learned Counsel further contends that the learned Appellate Court did not
properly consider the contentions raised in the appeal. There is no likelihood
of early hearing of revision in near future. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision
petitioner may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the
application and prays for its rejection.
The contentions of revision petitioner has prima facie substance which
deserve consideration on merit. The petitioner is undergoing sentence of
imprisonment since date of judgment i.e. 03.03.2025. Out of short sentence
of 04 months rigorous imprisonment, he had already undergone one month
and five days of jail sentence. There is no likelihood of early hearing of
3 CRR-1047-2025
revision in near future.
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 petitioner - Mukhtiyar Gulla
shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be
enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following
conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
25.06.2025 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The revision petitioner shall ensure hearing of the revision on the
date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation
on his 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 petitioner 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 petitioner does not appear on the date of his
4 CRR-1047-2025
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 his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC/491 of
BNSS 2023 against such revision petitioner and his 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
petitioner shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of
imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3289/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
