Amit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1360 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Amit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2025

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                                               1                                  CRA-13519-2023
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT GWALIOR
                                                      CRA No. 13519 of 2023
                                               (AMIT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                         Dated : 09-07-2025
                               Shri R.K.Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Abhijit Singh and Ms.
                         Bhavya Sharma - Advocates for the appellant.
                               Shri Vijay Sundaram - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

                               Heard on I.A.No.14503/2025, second repeat application under Section
                         389(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of sole appellant Amit Singh for suspension of

                         sentence and grant of bail.
                               2. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 28.08.2023 passed
                         by Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind (M.P.) in ST
                         No.94/2018; whereby, present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
                         under :-


                              Section               Imprisonment Fine
                                                    01 year's R.I.
                              147 of IPC                           Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

                              148 of IPC            02 years' R.I. Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.
                              302/149 of IPC (2     Life           Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation (2
                              counts)               Imprisonment counts).
                              307/149 of IPC (2                    Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation (2
                                                    7 Years' R.I.
                              counts)                              counts)
                                                                   Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation
                              506 (B) of IPC        1 year's R.I.
                                                                              -

3 . It is the submission of counsel for present appellant that the trial Court erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to appellant. Present appellant has already suffered seven years and two months of incarceration

2 CRA-13519-2023 as pre and post trial confinement. It is further submitted that present appellant did not cause injury to deceased. As per prosecution case, he caused injury to injured Jagdish on non vital part. However, Jagdish expired during trial and therefore appellant had no opportunity to cross examine him. No weapon has been seized from the possession of the present appellant. The final hearing of the appeal shall take some time and he has a good case on merits. He undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submits that it is a case of double murder. Looking to the genesis

of crime, one girl from the family of complainant namely Vimleshi was eve teased by one of the family members of accused side and therefore dispute erupted between the families six months prior to the incident. On fateful day, earlier appellant visited house of complainant side as an assailant and tried to intimidate them. Later on, matter reconciled, then they went away. At later part of evening, they again came back with fire arms in their hand and opened indiscriminate firing in which two persons Balram and Veerendra died and two persons Jagdish and Somvati were injured. It is a case of audacity, that too, when they were pointed out about their action qua eve teasing. Therefore, it is a case where indiscriminate firing took place and two persons died. On such grounds, counsel for the respondent/State prays for dismissal of the present application.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

3 CRA-13519-2023

6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that in the incident two persons Balram and Veerendra died whereas two persons namely Jagdish and Somvati got injured; incident is of 26.10.2017, whereas present appellant was arrested on 06.11.2017. Although no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the appellant but his role was specifically described by all the witnesses to cause injury to Jagdish. Total six cartridges were found on the spot and four fire arm injuries were caused to deceased/injured persons. Looking to the nature of incident, genesis of crime and the fact that it was an Intent Driven Crime rather than Impulse Driven Crime, this Court, at this stage, does not intend to allow the present application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to present appellant Amit.

7. Resultantly, I.A.No.14503/2025 sans merit is hereby rejected. 8 . Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

                               (ANAND PATHAK)                             (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
                                   JUDGE                                          JUDGE
                         SP