Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajkuwar Bai vs The State Of M. P. on 21 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-11817-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 11817 of 2024
(BRAJKUWAR BAI Vs THE STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS )
Dated : 21-01-2025
Shri Vijay Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Madhusudan Yadav GA for the State.
Learned counsel for the State informs that notice with regard to
filing of this appeal in compliance with mandate of Section 15-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 has been duly served on the victim
.Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No. 17373/2024 , first application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant- Brajkuwarbai has been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC & ST Act and
section 323 of IPC read with sections 3(v)(a), 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) of SC & ST
Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with
fine of Rs. 500/- and six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
500/- respectively with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 12/09/2024 passed by Special Judge ( SC & ST Act
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 21-01-2025
19:42:15
2 CRA-11817-2024
) Ujjain, District- Ujjain (M.P.) in SC ATR no. 159/2019
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that minor altercation over
taking water from government handpump between the parties aggravated
into physical scuffle. No offence, as alleged, was committed by the
appellant. Independent witness Antarsingh states that Antarbai and
Brajkuwarbai were quarreling with each other and assaulting each other.
Learned counsel further submits that learned trial Court has committed
an error in convicting the appellant for the alleged offence. The
impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is based on
assumption, conjecture and surmises. The learned Trial Court has
committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellant
without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses.
During trial, the appellant was released on bail. She has not misused the
liberty granted to her. She is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment
from the date of impugned judgment i.e. 12/09/2024. There is no
likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining sentence of imprisonment of
the appellant may be suspended and she may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the
application.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without
commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, the
3 CRA-11817-2024
application is allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining sentence of imprisonment of appellant shall remain
suspended during pendency of this appeal and she shall be enlarged on
bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) 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
21/04/2025 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 her appearance
4 CRA-11817-2024
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 her attendance under intimation to the Registry of
High Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of
CrPC/491 of BNSS 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 IA stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
