Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2025
1 CRA-14732-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 14732 of 2023
(VIJAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 29-04-2025
Ms. Rukmani Dhangar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Solanki, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard on IA No.3822/2025, 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 Vijay Fulkar.
2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 307 of IPC (3 count),
section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act and 27 of Arms Actand sentenced to undergo
10 years imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- in each count, 1 year
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, 3 year imprisonment with fine of
Rs.10,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
3. As per prosecution case, appellant Vijay was married to Ranjna,
daughter of complainant Jamnabai. Due to family dispute, Ranjna along with
her children were residing along with her mother Jamnabai. On 03.11.2018
at about 6 a.m. morning Ranjna and her daughters were in the house when
appellant came there. He was armed with a weapon like Faliya started
assaulting Ranjna. When cries were heard by Jamnabai, she came there to
intervene and saved Roshni and Ranjna. Appellant also assaulted Ranjna by
Dhariya. All of them sustained grievous injuries on their back, neck and
other parts of the body. Appellant fled away. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 30-04-2025
14:53:00
2 CRA-14732-2023
registered and thereafter the FIR (Ex.P/42) was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is suffering
incarceration since last 7 years and 3 months out of 10 years total
imprisonment. She has also assailed the findings of conviction on the ground
that prosecution evidence has not been properly appreciated. 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. The appeal being of the
year 2023 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. There is a strong
case in favour of the appellant. Hence, under such circumstances prayer is
made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State has opposed the prayer on the ground that the appellant has
assaulted brutally to his wife and daughters who were not armed due to the
family dispute, therefore, urges the Court for dismissal of the application.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, looking to the custody
and the evidence in entirety and 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
remaining custodial sentence of the appellant.
8. Accordingly, application is 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
3 CRA-14732-2023
be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of learned 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 17.06.2025 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.
9. 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].
10. Where the appellant 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
to secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court.
11. 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].
4 CRA-14732-2023
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, the I.A. stands 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
