Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramdayal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-8894-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8894 of 2023
(RAMDAYAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-04-2025
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma advocate for appellant.
Shri Amit Raval public prosecutor for State.
Heard on IA No.14219/2024, second application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Ramdayal seeking suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant-Ramdayal stood convicted under Section 420 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-
and under Section 6(1) of MP Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan
Adhiniyam, 2000 and sentenced to undergo 5 year's rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 23.06.2023, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST
Act)/Special Judge (MP Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam,
2000) District Shajapur in ST No. 400137/2016.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that impugned judgment
passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures and surmises.
Learned counsel submits that the prosecution witness Sanjay (PW-4), Rajendra
(PW-7) and Deepak (PW-8) have not supported the prosecution. The learned Trial
Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing present appellant
without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are material
contractions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. On these grounds,
learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 09-04-2025
11:29:51
2 CRA-8894-2023
be suspended and they may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
suspension application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence and prays
for its rejection.
The contentions of appellant has prima facie substance which deserve
consideration on merit. The appellant remained in judicial custody from
07.03.2022 till the date of impugned judgment i.e. 23.06.2023. Thereafter, he
is undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date of impugned judgment i.e.
23.06.2023 till date. Thus, the appellant has undergone the jail incarceration for
almost three years. 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 appellant- Ramdayal shall remain
suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail
subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One
Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-
(1). The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2). The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 23.06.2025 ,
and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed
for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on his
behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
3 CRA-8894-2023
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 appellant 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 appellant does not appear on the date of her 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 her attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court.
The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC / section
491 of BNSS, 2023 against such appellant 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 appellant shall
be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 14219/2024, stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
