Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-718-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 718 of 2025
(ISHWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 20-03-2025
Shri Kuldeep Dashora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vinod Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on I.A. No.2301/2025, which is the first application under
Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/397 of Cr.P.C for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of revision
petitioner - Ishwar.
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/397 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been
filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
11.09.2024, passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, District
Neemuch(M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.58/2024 confirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2023 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Neemuch, District Neemuch(M.P.) in RCT
No.1802/2015 whereby revisioner petitioner has been convicted under
Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 for Rigorous Imprisonment of one year
with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision
petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. Both, the trial Court and the
first appellate Court, have committed error in convicting the revision
2 CRR-718-2025
petitioner ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the
prosecution evidence. Learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court did
not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The independent seizure
witness Bhagwanlal(PW2) did not support the prosecution. The learned trial
Court committed an error in convicting the accused on the basis of
inconsistent evidence of the police witnesses. Learned Counsel further
contends that the learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the
contentions raised in the appeal. 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. Revision petitioner was extended benefit of
bail during trial for a period of 19 days and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. He is undergoing sentence of imprisonment since the date of
judgment of 1st Appellate Court i.e. 11.09.2024. The revision petitioner was
on bail during trial and during hearing of the appeal. He did not misuse the
liberty. 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. It is, accordingly directed that
execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner - Ishwar shall
3 CRR-718-2025
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
25.06.2025 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
BNSS 2023 against such revision petitioner and his surety without any
reference to this Court and without any impediment of the order granting
4 CRR-718-2025
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.2301/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
