Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Dabar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-867-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 867 of 2025
(RAJU DABAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 12-03-2025
Shri Jay Sharma, Advocate for the revision petitioner.
Shri Vinod Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the 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.2755/2025, which is the first application under
Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of revision petitioner - Raju
Dabar.
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2025 passed by
IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore(M.P.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 71/2023 confirming the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 18.07.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore, District Indore(M.P.) in Criminal case
No.501543/2014 whereby revisioner petitioner has been convicted under
Sections 304-A of IPC for Rigorous Imprisonment of one year with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, under Section 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles
sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively with default
2 CRR-867-2025
stipulations.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that it is a case of
road accident wherein motorcycle and a Moped dashed each other. The
identity of revision petitioner as driver of the motorcycle was not proved
beyond doubt by the evidence in trial. Learned trial Court and the first
Appellate Court ignored this important aspect of the matter. The prosecution
has failed to prove beyond doubt that the accident was result of rash and
negligent driving of the revision petitioner. Further, learned Appellate Court
did not properly consider the contentions raised in the appeal. Learned trial
Court and First Appellate Court committed error in convicting and
sentencing the revision petitioner. There is no 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.
The contentions of revision petitioner has prima facie substance which
deserve consideration on merit. The revision petitioner was on bail during
trial and during hearing of the appeal. They did not misuse the liberty. The
revision petitioner Raju Dabar is undergoing sentence of imprisonment since
the date of appellate Judgement i.e. 21.02.2025. There is no likelihood of
early hearing of revision in near future. 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.
3 CRR-867-2025
It is, accordingly directed that execution of remaining jail sentence
of revision petitioner - Raju Dabar 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
07.05.2025 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
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
4 CRR-867-2025
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.2755/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
