Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh @ Rajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-338-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 338 of 2016
(RAJESH @ RAJENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 18-03-2025
Shri Deepak Kumar Rawal - Advocate for the appellant..
Shri H.S.Rathore - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.3725/2025, which is fourth application under Section
430(1) of BNSS, 2023 filed on behalf of appellant/accused - Rajesh alias Rajendra
for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under Section for offence punishable u/S
302 of IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-
with default stipluation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.01.2016 passed in S.T. No. 371/2014 by Sessions Judge, Distt. Dewas.
Appellant's first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
26.06.2019. His second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
15.06.2022 and his third application was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2024.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that 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. The
appellant is convicted merely on suspicion. The evidence of alleged eye-witnesses
- Vikram Singh (PW-7) and Dilip Singh (PW-2) is doubtful. . Learned counsel
further submits that appellant has already suffered more than ten years and seven
months of jail incarceration. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that
2 CRA-338-2016
execution of remaining sentence of imprisonment of the appellant may be
suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Appellant's earlier application for suspension of sentence was dismissed
with liberty to renew the prayer after completion of ten years of actual sentence.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the applicant on the ground of gravity
of offence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh vs. The State of Punjab
(1977) 4 SCC 291 has observed that it would indeed be a travesty of justice to
keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years, if the Court is not able to hear
the appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of time. The Supreme Court
while observing that unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise, the
accused be released on bail; suspended the sentence of accused in the said case
during pendency of the appeal.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision dated 06.10.2021 in
Sonadhar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s).529/2021] has held that in the State of UP, where cases of 'life convicts' are
pending for a long period and large incarceration has already undergone, the cases
be remitted to the High Court for an early consideration on the pleas of bail.
Also, in Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [Crl. Appeal
Nos.308-324/2022 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021] the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
view of the fact that the appellant therein was in jail for eight years, released him
on bail.
The appellant remained in judicial custody from 23.08.2014 to 19.01.2016.
3 CRA-338-2016
He has undergone sentence of imprisonment from the date of impugned judgement
i.e. 19.01.2016. Considering the reasons stated in the application and in the light
of the aforesaid judgments coupled with the fact that appellant no.1 has completed
more than 10 years of jail incarceration and that final conclusion of this appeal
will take considerable long time, we deem it appropriate to suspend the remaining
jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A No. 3725/2025 is allowed. The jail sentence of appellant -
Rajesh alias Rajendra is suspended upon his depositing the fine amount, if not
already deposited, and on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 07/05/2025 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry, during the
pendency of the appeal.
With the aforesaid, I.A No.3725/2025 is allowed and disposed off.
List the matter in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
