Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-5631-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 5631 of 2024
(DHARMENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 23-01-2025
Shri Pankaj Kumar Sohani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vinod Thakur, Govt. Advocate for 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.20557/2024, which is an application for condonation
of delay.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner
is residing in remote village area, therefore, he was not aware of the
judgment of the First Appellate Court. Later, he was arrested on 27.07.2024.
He is undergoing sentence of imprisonment ever since. Due to lack of
knowledge of law, he could not prefer this revision earlier.
For the reasons stated in the application, sufficient cause is made out
to condone the delay.
I.A. No.20557/2024 is allowed. Delay of 130 days in filing the
revision petition is allowed.
Also heard on I.A. No.18148/2024, which is first application under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
moved on behalf of revision petitioner - Dharmendra.
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section Section
2 CRR-5631-2024
442 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 21.03.2024 passed by First Additional Sessions
Judge, Khargone, District Mandleshwar, West Nimad(M.P.) in Criminal
Appeal No.70/2023 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 05.10.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khargone, District Mandleshwar, West Nimad(M.P.) in RCT No.162/2022
whereby petitioner has been convicted u/S 25(1-b)(b) of Arms Act, 1959 and
sentenced to undergo 02 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-
with default stipulations.
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
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. He further submits that Sameer(PW1) did
not support the prosecution case. The learned trial Court convicted the
petitioner/accused on the testimony of Habib(PW2) and Investigation Officer
- Ashok Patel(PW3) ignoring material inconsistencies. He further submits
that the revision petitioner was extended benefit of bail during trial and he
did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He submits that out of total jail
sentence of 2 years simple imprisonment, the revision petitioner had already
undergone sentence of imprisonment of 5 months and 29 days. There is no
3 CRR-5631-2024
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 - Dharmendra S/o
Natthu Patidar 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.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 revision petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
26.03.2025 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
4 CRR-5631-2024
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
imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No.18148/2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
