Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagat Singh @ Lalu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-53-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 53 of 2025
(BHAGAT SINGH @ LALU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 26-03-2025
Shri Sapna Patwa, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Romil Verma, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, present appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on IA No.35/2025, first application under Section 430 of
Bharatiya Nagraik Suraksha Sanhita moved on behalf of appellants No.1 -
Bhagat Singh @ Lalu and No.2 - Mukesh seeking suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail.
Appellants stood convicted under Section 473/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 02 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.3,000/- and with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 18.12.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Dharampuri, Dhar(M.P.) in ST. No.11/2021.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures
and surmises. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting
and sentencing the appellants without appreciating the prosecution evidence
properly. She further submits that after the judgment of conviction, the
appellants were extended temporary suspension of sentence under Section
2 CRA-53-2025
389(3) of Cr.P.C., but they did not surrender on completion of period of
suspension. Therefore, warrant of arrest was issued against them. Appellants
surrendered before the trial Court on 03.03.2025. The appellant Bhagatsingh
remained in judicial custody from 17.12.2020 to 24.12.2020 and appellant
No.2 Mukesh from 04.02.2021 to 12.02.2021. The appellants are undergoing
sentence of imprisonment since the date of judgment. Learned counsel for
the appellant referring to the cross-examination of Range Officer
Dharmendra Singh Rathore(PW2) contends that the alleged pick-up vehicle
was seized from PS Dhamnod. He failed to explain that when the pick-up
vehicle was apprehended and in whose custody it was kept overnight. The
learned trial Committed error in relying evidence of PW2 ignoring the
inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in their evidence. There is no
likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining sentence of imprisonment of the
appellants may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposes the
suspension application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence and prays
for its rejection.
The contentions of appellants have prima facie substance which
deserve consideration on merit. 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
appellants shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and they
3 CRA-53-2025
shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following
conditions:-
(1). The appellants shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2). The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court on 23.06.2025 ,
and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The appellants shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed
for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on their
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 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].
4 CRA-53-2025
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 No.35/2025, stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
