Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imran Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-4546-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 4546 of 2024
(IMRAN KHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 07-01-2025
Shri Syed Asif Ali Warsi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Apoorv Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Record of the Courts below has been received.
Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.14828/2024, which is the first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of revision petitioner - Imran Kha.
This criminal revision under Section 397of Cr.P.C. has been filed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2024
passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District
Rajgarh(M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.172/2022 confirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2022 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Narsinghgarh, Rajgarh in RCT No. 301032/2015
whereby petitioner has been convicted u/S 379 of IPC and sentenced to 1
year Rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision
petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. Both, the trial Court and the
first appellate Court, have committed error in convicting the revision
petitioner ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the
2 CRR-4546-2024
prosecution evidence. Learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court did
not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Learned Counsel further
contends that the learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the
contentions raised in the appeal. Learned counsel further contends that the
independent seizure witnesses Aashik(PW2), Ibrahim(PW4) and Kallu(PW8)
did not support the prosecution. The seizure of alleged vehicle is doubtful.
Learned trial Court convicted the accused/petitioner on inconsistency
testimony of police official. Revision petitioner was extended benefit of bail
during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The revision
petitioner is undergoing sentence of imprisonment since the date of judgment
of 1st Appellate Court i.e 14.08.2024. There is no likelihood of early hearing
of revision in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that
execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner may be suspended
and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the
application and prays for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view
that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that
execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner - Imran Kha S/o
Munshi Kha shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he
shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following
3 CRR-4546-2024
conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
05.03.2025 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The revision petitioner shall ensure hearing of the revision 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 revision petitioner 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 revision petitioner does 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 CrPC/491 of
BNSS 2023 against such revision petitioner 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 revision
petitioner shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of
4 CRR-4546-2024
imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No.14828/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
