Kamlesh Gujar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 910 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kamlesh Gujar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 June, 2025

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                              1                              CRA-14023-2024
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 14023 of 2024
                                       (KAMLESH GUJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                           Dated : 02-06-2025
                                 Shri A.K. Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
                                 Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Abhishek Pandey - Advocate for the objector.

Heard on I.A. No.7317/2025, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.7 Nati Bhaiya Gujar and

appellant No.8 Janpad Singh Gujar.

The appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-each appellant, Section 450 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-each appellant, Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-each appellant, Section 307/149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-each appellant, Section 325/149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of

Rs.1000/-each appellant, Section 323 read with Section 149 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.100/- each appellant and Section 427 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/-each appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record

2 CRA-14023-2024 while convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences. It is contended by the counsel that co-accused Anand Patel (appellant No.5) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 bearing I.A.No.32939/2024 and co-accused persons, namely, Ram Kishan Gujar (appellant No.2) and Halke @ Mahendra (appellant No.6) have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 bearing I.A.No.2586/2025. It is alleged by the prosecution that the present appellants inflicted injury to Suraj Singh but the fact remains that the injury which were sustained by Suraj were found to be simple in nature and that fact is evident from perusal of paragraph 58 as well as 59 of the impugned judgment dated 03.12.2024. Thus, it is contended by the counsel that taking into consideration the nature of injury and also the fact that similarly situated co-

accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court, under such circumstances, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail and accordingly, sentence be suspended as, the appellants have suffered incarceration of more than 3 years as of now.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants and submitted that after due sifting analysis of evidence, the Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion while convicting the appellants. There are eye witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and their versions have remained unrebutted. Hence no case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out.

Learned counsel for the objector has opposed the prayer for suspension

3 CRA-14023-2024 of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants and submitted that the present appellants caused injury to the deceased as well as injured persons and cannot claim parity with the other co-accused persons as they had not inflicted any injury to the deceased. In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Rishideo Pande vs. state of Uttar Pradsh reported in AIR 1955 SC 331.

Having considered the submissions and perusal of record. A perusal of the record it is evident that co-accused Anand Patel (appellant No.5) and co-accused persons, namely, Ram Kishan Gujar (appellant No.2) and Halke @ Mahendra (appellant No.6) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 bearing I.A.No.32939/2024 and vide order dated 11.03.2025 bearing I.A.No.2586/2025 respectively. The appellants have suffered incarceration of more than 3 years as of now. This appeal is of the year 2024 and final hearing of this appeal will take time.

Thus, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and period of incarceration already suffered by the appellants, this Court deems it proper to enlarge the appellants on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the

appellants shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail for

4 CRA-14023-2024 securing their presence before the trial Court concerned on 14.10.2025 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in that regard during pendency of this appeal.

It is made clear that if the appellants are not required in any other case, they be released forthwith subject to deposit of fine amount (if not already deposited).

List this case for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

                                (MANINDER S. BHATTI)                          (ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
                                     V. JUDGE                                        V. JUDGE
                           sp