Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahrukh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-9938-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 9938 of 2024
(SHAHRUKH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 16-01-2025
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Santosh Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on IA No.14074/2024, first application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant-Shahrukh seeking suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant - Shahrukh stood convicted under Section 307, Part-II r/w
Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, under Section 387 of IPC sentenced to
undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-; under
Section 427 of the IPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 1 year with
fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act sentenced to 7
years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and under Section 27 of
the Arms Act sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 01.06.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Neemuch(M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2017.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the alleged incident
occurred around 10.00 in the night. Hasan Begh(PW2) has stated that street
lights were not working and it was dark at the spot of incident, therefore, he
2 CRA-9938-2024
could not see the assailants. Learned counsel further contends that although
Ajay Soni (PW8) and Abhishek Soni(PW6) have identified the assailants, but
there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in their evidence. Other
witness Vikram(PW3) did not support the prosecution. Prosecution has failed
to establish the motive for the alleged offence. The Test Identification Parade
also suffers from irregularity. Learned counsel further contends that
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 without appreciating the
prosecution evidence properly. Learned counsel further contends that no
criminal antecedents reported against the appellant. Learned counsel further
contends that appellant was in police custody from 16.01.2017 to 28.01.2017
and remained in judicial custody from 28.01.2017 till the date of judgment
and he is undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date of judgment
i.e. 01.06.2024. There is no likelihood of early hearing of appeal in near
future. He further submits that co-accused Fayyaz has been granted
suspension vide order dated 24.08.2024. On these grounds, learned counsel
prays that the execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be
suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the suspension
application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence 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
3 CRA-9938-2024
that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that the
execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant - Shahrukh 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) with one solvent surety each 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 05.03.2025 ,
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
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 does not appear on the date of their 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 against such
appellant and his surety without any reference to this Court and without any
4 CRA-9938-2024
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 appellants
shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA No.14074 of 2024, stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
