Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kailash vs The State Of M.P. on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

                                                             1                              CRA-9806-2024
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                        CRA No. 9806 of 2024
                                               (KAILASH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF M.P. )



                          Dated : 01-05-2025
                                Shri Prasanna Namdeo - Advocate for the appellants.

                                Shri Santosh Singh Thakur - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Appeal is admitted for hearing.

Record of trial Court is received.

Heard on I.A. No. 17742/2024, second application under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagraik Suraksha Sanhita moved on behalf of appellants- Kailash Bheel, Mehtaab Bheel and Mukesh Bheel seeking suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Appellants stood convicted under 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2024, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi District Dhar in ST No. 62/2022.

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. The learned trial Committed error in relying evidence of witnesses ignoring the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities in their evidence.

2 CRA-9806-2024 Appellants were on bail during trial. They did not misuse the liberty so granted. The Sentence of imprisonment vide judgment dated 30.07.2024 has been suspended by the trial Court under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. 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 they 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 - Kailash, Mehtaab and Mukesh shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and they shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount each, 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 07.07.2025 , 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

3 CRA-9806-2024 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 appellants do 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 their attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C against such appellants and their 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, I.A. No. 17742/2024, stands allowed and disposed of. List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE