Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shadab Quraishi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-3929-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3929 of 2021
(SHADAB QURAISHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 10-02-2025
Shri Qasim Ali - Advocate for the appellant appeared through VC.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.26990/2023,which is the second application under
Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the
appellant - Shadab Quraishi for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail
sentence.
02. Appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 06.03.2021
passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.C. No.502/2015 for the offences punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine
of Rs.2,000/-, Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 05 years
with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 25(1-B) (A) of Arms Act and sentenced to
undergo RI for 01 year with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 27(1) of Arms Act
and sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/-, with default
stipulations.
03. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is second
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Record shows that
the earlier regular application was dismissed after considering the facts on
26.09.2022 and a temporary suspension application moved in the meanwhile
was also dismissed on 20.02.2023. This application has been argued on the
2 CRA-3929-2021
ground that complainant Mohd. Rehan was not acquainted with the appellant
and no test identification parade was held to establish the identity of
appellant as an assailant. It has also been argued that alleged eye witness
Abdul Wahid Khan (PW-2) has admitted in paragraph no.8 that he had seen
the appellant first time on the date of incident and was not aware of his name.
The other alleged eye witness Javed Khan (PW-4) was declared hostile by
prosecution and evidence on seizure is not reliable either. Further submission
is that appellant is in custody for almost 10 years. Hence, in these
circumstances, a prayer is made for suspension of the jail sentence and grant
of bail.
04. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant
is in custody and he has completed more than ten years of custody. There is
no likelihood of early disposal of the appeal. Hence, he prays for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 3259 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has directed for consideration of the application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail where the appellant has already undergone 50% of the
actual sentence.
05. Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the application
on the ground that these submissions were already considered while passing
the order dated 26.09.2022. Hence, consideration is not warranted.
06. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the
3 CRA-3929-2021
merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the application for
suspension of custodial sentence filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to
be allowed.
07. Accordingly, I.A. No.26990/2023 is allowed and the execution of
remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended till the final
disposal of this appeal. It is directed that appellant - Shadab Quraishi be
released on bail subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court, with a further direction to appear before the
Registry of this Court on 05.05.2025 and on such other dates, as may be
fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard during the pendency of this
appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pnm
