Madhya Pradesh High Court
Purshotam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-14417-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 14417 of 2023
(PURSHOTAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 20-03-2025
Shri Akash Rathi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Apoorv Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on I.A. No.2036/2025, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C./430 of BNSS, 2023 moved on behalf of appellant No.2 - Pankaj seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 05 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,500/- and under Section
25(1-B) of Arms Act sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of 06 months with fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 03.11.2023, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar(M.P.) in S.T.
No.82/2019.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely
implicated in this matter. As per allegation, appellant alongwith other co-accused
persons has caused injury to Rahul. Eye-witness Anita Khati(PW3) and seizure witness
Rajendra verma(PW5) did not support the case of prosecution. The seizure is not
proved. The present appellant has not caused any injury to the complainant on any vital
part of the body. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and
sentencing present appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly
and considering the effect of cross case in ST no. 02/2022. Learned counsel further
submits that the co-appellants Purshotam and Vinod have been extended benefit of
suspension of sentence vide orders dated 20.12.2023 and 29.01.2025 respectively. The
appellant is in custody for almost nine months. There is no likelihood of hearing of
2 CRA-14417-2023
appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of
remaining sentence of imprisonment of the appellant 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 appellant have prima facie substance which deserve
consideration on merit. The present appellant remained in judicial custody for 8 days
during trial and was extended benefit of bail. He did not misuse the liberty. He is
undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date of impugned judgment i.e.
03.11.2023. 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 appellant-No.2 Pankaj shall remain suspended during
pendency of this appeal 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 appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited) forthwith;
(2). The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 06.05.2025 , and on
such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal 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
appellant on any date, on sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule
3 CRA-14417-2023
2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
Where the appellant does not appear on the date of their 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 against such appellant 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 appellants shall be
forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to the
Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, IA stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
