Madhya Pradesh High Court
Daroga @ Vinod Kamariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
1 CRA-12408-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12408 of 2024
(SHERU @ SHAILENDRA KAMARIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
CRA/11413/2024
Dated : 15-01-2025
Shri Amit Kumar Goswami - Advocate for the appellants in Cr.A.12408
of 2024.
Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for the appellants in Cr.A. No. 11413/2024.
Shri Harish Sharma- Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No. 23688/2024 which is an application under Section 5
of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in Cr.A. No. 12408/2024.
Looking to the averments made in the application and looking to the
fact that the appellant is in jail, the application is allowed and the delay
caused in filing the appeal is condoned.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Record has already been called in connected appeal.
Also heard on admission.
Appeal being arguable, admitted for hearing.
Heard on IA No. 23608/2024 & I.A. No. 25738/2024 first application
for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants
Sheru @ Shailendra, Ram Milan and Rajendra Kamariya.
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellants Sheru
@ Shailendra and Ram Milan have been convicted under Sections 148,
307/149 of IPC and 25(1-B) (a) and 27 Arms Act while the appellant
Rajendra has been convicted under Section 307/149 and 148 of IPC. The
maximum sentence awarded to each of the appellants is 5 years under
Section 307/149 of IPC.
2 CRA-12408-2024
It is contended that the appellant Sheru @ Shailendra has spent almost
two years seven months in custody till now while appellant Rajendra has
spent about five months in custody till now while the appellant Ram Milan
has spent about eight months in custody till now.
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant Rajendra by referring
to the paragraphs No. 43 to 45 of the trial court judgment that though it has
been found by the trial Court that appellant Rajendra was present on spot
but has not been found with armed with gun and has has been acquitted of
charges under Arms Act. The injured person has been hit by gun shot injury
and in the said injury there is no active participation of the appellant
Rajendra.
So far as the appellant Sheru @ Shailendra Kamaria is concerned, he is
the person who is stated to have fired the actual gun shot and he is also armed
with the fire arm but it has been argued that he has already spent more than
half of the sentence in actual jail custody. Final hearing of the appeal is not
possible in near future as the appeal is of the year 2024.
So far as the appellant Ram Milan is concerned, he is also found to be
an accused who was armed with fire arm as held by the trial court in para 43
and 44 of the judgment though the actual gun shot was not caused by his fire
arm.
Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the applications
of the appellant for suspension of remaining jail sentence.
Looking to the circumstances and looking to the nature of the
allegation against appellant Rammilan, the application for suspension of
3 CRA-12408-2024
sentence in his regard is rejected.
Looking to the circumstances and looking to the nature of the
allegation against appellant Rajendra, the application for suspension of
sentence in his regard is allowed.
Looking to the period of custody of appellant Sheru @ Shailendra his
application is also stands allowed.
Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, IA
No.23608/2024 & I.A. No. 25738/2024 are hereby allowed. Subject to
depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the appellants Sheru @
Shailendra and Rajendra on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with a solvent surety of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail
sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended and they be released on
bail. The appellants are further directed to mark their appearance before the
Registry of this Court first on 17.03.2025 and on subsequent dates given by
the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
