Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun vs Stae Of M. P. Through on 8 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRA-13105-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 13105 of 2024
(ARJUN AND OTHERS Vs STAE OF M. P. THROUGH )
Dated : 08-05-2025
Shri Harish Chandra Tripathi advocate for the appellants.
Shri Madhusudan Yadav public prosecutor for State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Record of trial Court is received.
Heard on I.A. No. 1146/2025, first application under Section 430(1) of
Bharatiya Nagraik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 moved on behalf of appellants-
Arjun Damar, Satyanarayan Damar and Shankarlal Damar, seeking
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Appellants stood convicted under 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
2,000/- each with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 18.11.2024, passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge,
Ratlam District Ratlam in S.T. No.21/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment passed by learned Trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures
and surmises. Learned counsel submits that minor altercation over payment
of loan aggravated into physical assault between the parties. There was no
intention to kill as both the parties are near relatives. Arjun picked up a
wooden stick and assaulted Heeralal on his head. Satyanarayan also picked
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 08-05-2025
19:34:51
2 CRA-13105-2024
up a stone and pelted on Heeralal. Heeralal sustained head injury which was
later found to be fracture of skull. Learned trial court committed error in
convicting the appellants for attempt to murder. There was no intention or
knowledge to cause such injury as is likely to cause death. No criminal
antecedent is reported against any of the appellant. 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. Appellants were on bail during trial.
They did not misused the liberty granted to them. 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. The appellant Arjun Damar remained in
judicial custody from 08.12.2018 to 30.01.2019, appellants Satyanarayan
Damar and Shankarlal Damar remained in judicial custody from 21.12.2018
to 28.12.2018. They are undergoing sentence of imprisonment from the date
of impugned judgment i.e. 18.11.2024 till date.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view
3 CRA-13105-2024
that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that
execution of remaining jail sentence of appellants - Arjun Damar,
Satyanarayan Damar & Shankarlal Damar, 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 each 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 the date as
may be fixed 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 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
4 CRA-13105-2024
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.1146/2025, stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
