Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2025
1 CRA-13527-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 13527 of 2024
(JAGDISH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-01-2025
Appellants by Shri Ritu Raj Bhatnagar - Advocate.
Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Anand Bhatt -
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Complainant - objector by Shri Kanishq Shrivastava - Advocate.
Heard on the question of admission.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.20080 of 2024 , first application under Section 389
(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved on behalf of appellant No.1
Jagdish Bavri S/o Bhawarlal Bavri and appellant No.2 Lalaram Bavri S/o
Bhawarlal Bavri seeking suspension of remaining sentence of imprisonment
and grant of bail.
The appellant No.1 stood convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs.5,000/- and appellant No.2 stood convicted under Section 307
/ 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 25 (1-B) B of Arms Act, 1959 and
sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2024 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Mandsaur (MP) in Sessions Trial No.124 of 2022.
2 CRA-13527-2024
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal
of the interlocutory application filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Jagdish.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, suspension application filed on behalf of appellant No.1
Jagdish Bavri is dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the appellants referring to statement of PW-1
Injured Vikram, submits that he has not attributed any act on appellant No.1
Lalaram.
Learned Counsel for the appellants further contends that the impugned
judgment passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures
and surmises. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting
and sentencing the present appellant No.2 without appreciating the
prosecution evidence properly.
Learned counsel further contends that during trial, appellant No.2 was
in custody for a period of ninety three (93) days and thereafter he is in jail
since 26.11.2024 i.e. from the date of the judgment. There is no likelihood
of early hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned counsel
prays that the execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 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 filed on behalf of appellant No.2 deserves to be and is hereby
3 CRA-13527-2024
allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of remaining sentence of
imprisonment of the appellant No.2 shall remain suspended during pendency
of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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
12.02.2025 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
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 nonappearance 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 /
4 CRA-13527-2024
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 stand allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Pending other interlocutory application also stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
