Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mokam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-7549-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7549 of 2023
(MOKAM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 11-08-2025
Shri R.K.Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Basant Chaturvedi -
Advocate for appellant No.1 - Mokam Singh.
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.25915/2024 , second repeat application under Section
389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellant No.1 - Mokam Singh.
2 . Appellant No.1 is facing sentence by virtue of judgment dated
29.04.2023 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District
Vidisha, M.P. in S.T.No.200137/2016, whereby present appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu thereof
148 IPC 1 year's R.I. - -
307/149 of IPC (two counts) 5 years' R.I. 1,000/- 3 months R.I.
302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment 5,000/- 1 year's R.I.
3 . It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the present
appellant that trial Court erred in convicting the present appellant and
awarding jail sentence to him without appreciating the evidence and material
available on record. He has already suffered two years and eight
months' incarceration as pre and post trial confinement. It is further
submitted that out of five eye witnesses, three witnesses did not support the
story of the prosecution and declared hostile. Two witnesses; Jitendra
2 CRA-7549-2023
(P.W.1) and Hariom @ Ramsingh (P.W.2) in examination-in-chief supported
the story of the prosecution, but later-on in cross-examination they did not
support the story of the prosecution. However, prosecution did not declare
them hostile and did not conduct cross examination of those witnesses. This
is a material discrepancy which can not be overlooked. It is further submitted
that even otherwise, eye witness account as portrayed by Jitendra (P.W.1)
and Hariom @ Ramsingh (P.W.2) is believed, even then, role of appellant
No.1 Mokam Singh is confined to running tractor and attempted to ram the
persons present at agricultural field, nothing less nothing more. He did not
wield any firm arm or any weapon to inflict injury to the victims.
4. Learned senior counsel further submits that it is a case of cross FIR,
in which appellants' side also filed complaint vide Crime No.244/2015 at
Police Station Tyonda because from appellants' side, Hukam Singh
succumbed to the injuries inflicted by Prabhulal (from assailant side). Final
hearing of the appeal shall take some time and he has a good case on merits.
He undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court.
Looking to the period of custody, nature of allegations and the fact that it
was a case of cross FIR and a pitched battle, therefore, individual's role
assumes importance, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the present appellant.
5 . Learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer on the
basis of criminal record of the present appellant and submits that application
is liable to be dismissed.
6 . Considering the submissions advanced and looking to the peculiar
3 CRA-7549-2023
fact situation so also the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of
Gajanand and others v. State of U.P. - AIR 1954 SC 695, Lalji and others v.
State of U.P. (1974) 3 SCC 295, Puran v. State of Rajasthan - (1976) 1 SCC
28 and Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. - (1976) 4 SCC 355 but without
commenting on the merits of the case, I.A.No.25915/2024 filed on behalf of
appellant No.1 Mokam Singh stands allowed and it is directed that the jail
sentence of present appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the
present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and on his 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 the Trial Court concerned. The
appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
26/11/2025 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
7. Present appellant shall not be a source of embarrassment/harassment
to the complainant side in any manner.
8 . A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance and information.
Certified copy as per rules/directions
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
