Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2025
1 CRA-3524-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 3524 of 2025
(MANGILAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 16-04-2025
Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.4695/2025, first application under Section 430
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on
behalf of the appellant No. 1 Mangilal.
The appellant stands convicted under Section 325/34, 324/34 &
323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI with
fine of Rs.5000/-, 1 year SI with fine of Rs.500/- and 3 months imprisonment
with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation.
Also heard on I.A.No.4696/2025, first application under Section
430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
on behalf of the appellant No. 2 Rohit @ Rahul and appellant No.3 Ravindra.
The appellants stand convicted under Section 325/34, 324/34 &
323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI with
fine of Rs.5000/-, 1 year SI with fine of Rs.500/- and 3 months imprisonment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 16-04-2025
17:15:20
2 CRA-3524-2025
with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellants are innocent and they have been
falsely implicated in this matter. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
in its right perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in
the statement of the witnesses. Impugned judgment suffers from surmises
and conjectures and has been passed ignoring serious infirmities and
anomalies. It is further submitted that appellant Mangilal has suffered jail
incarceration for more than one year out of 2 years imprisonment. The jail
sentence of the appellants No.2 & 3 have already suspended by the trial
Court up to 28.04.2025. The appeal being of the year 2025 is not likely to be
heard finally in near future. There is a strong case in favour of the appellants.
Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for suspension of jail
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 nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellants.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, all the facts and
circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that possibility of final
hearing of this appeal in near future is bleak, without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits, I find it to be a fit case to suspend the
3 CRA-3524-2025
remaining custodial sentence of the appellants.
Accordingly, applications are allowed. Subject to deposit of fine
amount, if not already deposited the remaining jail sentence during the
pendency of the appeal is hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant
No.1 Mangilal, appellant No. 2 Rohit @ Rahul and appellant No.3 Ravindra
be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with separate solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for compliance with
following conditions:-
(1) The appellants shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2) The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court on 19.06.2025 and
on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3) The appellants 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.
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 appellants do not appear on the date of his 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
4 CRA-3524-2025
to secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court.
The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. /
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 appellants
shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, the I.As. stand allowed and disposed off.
Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
