Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2025
1 CRA-10966-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 10966 of 2024
(JAGDISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 14-02-2025
Appellant by Shri Ashish Gupta - Advocate.
Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Virendra Khadav -
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Since the present appeal has already been admitted for final hearing on
03.10.2024 , therefore, IA No.16510 of 2024 , an application for condonation
of 696 days delay in filing the appeal, which is duly supported by an
affidavit, is hereby allowed; and delay in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
Also heard on IA No.16507 of 2024 , 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 - Jagdish S/o Tahaniya Barela .
Vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2022 passed by learned Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, District Barwani (MP), the appellant
stands convicted under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (on four
counts with respect to deceased Dinesh, Jagat @ Jugaliya, Rakesh and
Nansingh) and sentenced to undergo ten years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- on
each count with usual default stipulation.
As per prosecution story, on 29.01.2018, complainant Ralya has
purchased beverage (illicit liquor) from accused Jagdish (present appellant)
2 CRA-10966-2024
which was prepared by using lime, tea and sugar. After consuming that
liquid (liquor), Dinesh, Rakesh and Nansingh started omitting and during
treatment, they succumbed to ailment caused in consumption of the liquor.
In this case, four persons Dinesh, Jagat @ Juganiya, Rakesh and Nansingh
have died. After that, FIR was lodged against the present appellant for
commission of offence under Section 304 of IPC (on four counts) and also
under Section 308 of IPC (on seven counts) with Section 328 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. Learned counsel specifically refers to FSL
report Ex.P/56 that no poisonous substance has been found in the liquor,
which was alleged prepared and recovered from the appellant. He is
suffering incarceration since three years one month and ten days out of total
ten years rigorous imprisonment. No criminal antecedents have been
reported against the appellant. The judgment has been passed on conjectures
and surmises without properly appreciating the evidence. The appeal being
of the year 2024 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.
Per contra, learned counsel 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 appellant. Learned counsel has opposed the prayer on the
3 CRA-10966-2024
ground that the liquid (liquor) which was prepared by the appellant took life
of four persons, but fairly submits that the liquor seized from the appellant
has not been found forfeited with any poisonous substance, as per FSL report
Ex.P/56. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, learned counsel
prays for dismissal of the suspension application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, and looking to the period
of incarceration and the fact that the chances of final hearing in near future
are 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.
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 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 -
(1) The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 25/03/2025
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.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
4 CRA-10966-2024
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 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.
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 appellant
shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
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
rcp
